Wa raraBicos GROSSOu» Larry J. Tarabicos Geofley L. Grosso Scott L. Matthews Michael J. Hoffman ‘Thomas F. Driscoll II Larry J. Tarabicos Lary@tarabicosgrosso.com (0) 302-757-7807 One Corporate Commons 100 West Commons Boulevard Suite 415 ‘New Castle, DE 19720 Bradley E. Adrian E, June 5, 2018 New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use Government Center 87 Read's Way New Castle, Delaware 19720 Re: Requests for Subdivision Variances ~ Hamlet 4; Application 2018 — 0290 - SV To the Members of the New Castle County Planning Board: ur firm represents the owners of the Town of Whitehall, who are one of the original owners and developers of Village 1 (now under construction) and the owners of Village 2, Hamlet 3, and Hamlet 7. As a result of a recent transaction, our clients no longer have any interest in Hamlet 4 or Villages 5 and 6, Our clients were instrumental in the adoption of the Village and Hamlet Code in New Castle County (after more than 20 years of discussions and consideration) and have invested a tremendous amount of time and resources into the success of this initiative, including a financial investment in the Town of Whitehall, in excess of $11,000,000, to date. The success of the Town of Whitehall, and future Hamlets and Villages to follow, rest upon an uncompromising commitment and adherence by elected and appointed officials, government regulators, and the development community to the principles and standards of the County’s Village and Hamlet Code The Original Record Major Subdivision Plan for Hamlet 4 (“Original Plan”) that our clients were advancing did not require any variances See plan depicted below: cos4se9.D0Cx7 larcum (NI and PA only) 302-757-7800 iacci (PA only) www. tarabicosgrasso.com‘New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 2 WHITEHALL - HAMLET 4 (00034589.000%7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 3 Solely in an effort to cut construction costs and make the homes more immediately saleable, the New Exploratory Plan for Hamlet 4 (“New Plan”) requires several significant subdivision variances. See New Plan depicted below with changes from the Original Plan, as well as where the variances are being requested, highlighted: ‘00034589.00047New Castle County Planning Board and ‘New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 4 srusosusnsvonnamaunoue {2218 a WHITEHALL - HAMLET 4 ‘ST. GEORGE'S HUNDRED- NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DE "EXPLORATORY MAJOR SUBDIVISION PLAN o0028589.0-New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 5 Our clients are strongly opposed to the requested variances for the following reasons: 1. The proposed variances undermine the entire goals, purposes, and intentions of the Village and Hamlet Code, and, if approved, would have the effect of converting Hamlet 4 from a pedestrian-oriented and diverse community as envisioned under the Code, into an automobile-driven, conventional subdivision community; 2. If these variances were to be approved, they establish a clear and undesirable precedent that will allow any current or future developer to use the Village and Hamlet Code to avoid building innovative and walkable communities, but still receive the increased density permitted with Villages and Hamlets, between 3 and 7 times the density otherwise permitted under the Suburban ($) zoning classification, without seeking a rezoning: 3. ‘The proposed variances are not consistent with the goals and aspirations of the New Castle County Comprehensive Development Plan; 4. The proposed variances do not meet the standards for subdivision variances as set forth in Section 31.452 of the New Castle County Unified Development Code; and 5. The premature requests for the variances are procedurally deficient and violate the County Code and New Castle County policy. Background The Village and Hamlet Code, as adopted by New Castle County on October 13, 2009, and incorporated into the New Castle County Code in Chapter 40, Article 25, was the culmination of years and years of meetings, discussions, collaborations, and efforts between the community, Land Use Department, Planning Board, County Executive, and County Council, ‘The Village and Hamlet Code provides a developer in a Suburban (S) zoning district with the “by right” opportunity to achieve much greater densities and diversity of uses (apartments, townhouses, commercial, office, retail, etc.), which otherwise would require rezonings. However, in return for these benefits, an applicant/landowner must comply with very strict standards. The Village and Hamlet Code was adopted with the desire to reverse the undesirable trends with current subdivision developments and sets forth high standards for more (00024589.000%.7New Castle County Planning Board and ‘New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 6 creative and attractive housing types that would be a part of diverse communities. Importantly, its design features focus on pedestrians - not cars - resulting in more walkable and bikable, pedestrian oriented neighborhoods. The primary difference between conventional neighborhoods and the communities envisioned by the Village and Hamlet Code is the intent to make the automobile almost invisible. Hamlets and Villages are designed to take the vehicles typically located in the front of homes and conceal them in the rear. Garages are no longer a primary feature of homes; rather, vehicles are hidden and intrusions on the street are eliminated by the utilization of alleys and rear access garage Moreover, when garages have front access, they are set back from the home and parking is not permitted in the driveway section between the sidewalk and the house in order to ensure that the vehicles remain hidden, Diversity and variety are also key. Rather than segregating different housing types, various housing styles are mixed throughout the community. With these strict standards that accompany Hamlets and Villages, comes great rewards. Generally, a developer can obtain up to 1.3 homes per acre with traditional Suburban (S) zoning; however, when developed as a Hamlet, the permitted density for the same property may increase to 7 or 8 homes per acre by right. « 130 houses would be permitted via traditional Suburban (S) zoning ona 100-acre property (1.3 homes/acre) * With Hamlets, 700-800 houses could be permitted “by right” on a 100-acre property « Hamlet 4 is comprised of 316 houses (3.16 homes/acre), which is nearly 2.5 times what is permitted under traditional Suburban (S) zoning If a developer does not wish to follow these elevated standards and would rather build a typical subdivision, it can elect to develop the property under Suburban (S) zoning or apply to rezone the property to a Suburban Transition (ST) zoning classification, Any attempt to disguise a traditional subdivision as a Village or Hamlet is simply a sham; a“back-door” rezoning that undermines the Village and Hamlet Code and the entire New Castle County land development process. If the variances requested for Hamlet 4 are approved, numerous landowners and developers would similarly seek to abuse the Village and Hamlet Code. 00034589.00047New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 7 The applicant has requested variances that would allow the developer to do the following: © For twin houses, townhouses, and T4 single homes, remove alleys, place garages flush with homes, and permit parking in the driveways. * For single family detached houses, place garages flush with the homes and permit parking in the driveway section between the sidewalk and the house. © Widen driveways for ll of the applicable houses to create more “parking” in the front of the homes, * Provide limited or no walls or streetscreens to mask open parking areas from pedestrian view. The Hamlet 4 developers want to benefit from the increased density that accompanies Villages and Hamlets, but they do not want to adhere to the innovative and costly design elements of the Village and Hamlet Code. ‘These design elements were required in order to ensure that Villages and Hamlets are developed as high-quality, walkable, and diverse communities — easily distinguishable from the traditional cookic- cutter subdivisions. ‘The Original Plan provided various housing types dispersed throughout Hamlet 4 in order to ensure that the Hamlet was developed as a diverse community as envisioned under the Village and Hamlet Code. Contrarily, the applicant for the New Plan is advancing a Plan where all of the housing types are segregated into distinct areas — akin to conventional subdivisions, ‘Thus, the New Plan has all of the single family detached houses located together in one distinct area of the Hamlet, all townhouses are located in another, and all twin houses in another. ‘This segregation of housing types is what triggered the need for the proposed variances. The Applicant’s letter requesting the subdivision variances for Hamlet 4, illustrates that the goals for a diverse community were blatantly disregarded: the “layout provides the various unit types in distinct sections within the Pedestrian Shed, rather than scatter varying unit types across the site as was provided on the [Original Plan] submitted...” Furthermore, the Village and Hamlet Code makes it abundantly clear that the design of Villages and Hamlets should focus on creating pedestrian driven communities that encourage walking, biking, and the like. If the proposed variances were to be approved, .0034589.000%.7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 8 the walkability of Hamlet 4 would essentially be eliminated as the emphasis would be placed back on the vehicle, as is the situation with conventional subdivisions, The proposed variances would allow 167 out of the 316 houses (52.8%) to have garages in the front of the houses with parking in the driveway resulting in a community where the vehicle — not the pedestrian - is the main feature, The strict standards of the Village and Hamlet Code were implemented with an intent of avoiding these vehicle dominated communities, ‘The following photographs from the Village of Whitehall, Paynter’s Mill, and Village of Five Points illustrate the points that we are conveying above. The Village and Hamlet Code seeks to encourage “smart growth” by designing residential communities with elements that make the community “walkable” and a pleasant place to come together. The Hamlets and Villages have increased density and homes are designed to be in close proximity to each other and the street. The Villages and Hamlet Code seeks to place the emphasis on the pedestrian by making cars mostly invisible. You will see below that this is achieved by having alleys, instead of driveways, resulting in parking and garages being located in the back of the homes. ‘The alleys are utilized by both residents (parking and garage access) and the community (waste and recycle collection service). Moreover, where driveways are permitted for single family detached houses, the garages are set back from the homes and parking is not permitted on the portion of the driveway located between the sidewalk and the house. Live-Work Building - Village 1 of the Town of Whitehall (00034589,0007New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 9 T4 Transect Zone Townhouses — Village | of the Town of Whitehall (00038568.00047New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 10) T4 Transect Zone Townhouses ~ Village 1 of the Town of Whitehall 034588.0007New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 11 Alleys and Garages for T4 Transect Zone Townhouses — Village | of the Town of Whitehall T4 Transect Zone Single Family Detached Houses — Village 1 of the Town of Whitehall 10024589,000%.7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 12 Garages and Alleys for T4 Transect Zone Single Family Detached Houses ~ Village | of the Town of Whitehall T4 Transect Zone Single Family Detached Houses — Village 1 of the Town of Whitehall 00034589,00047New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 13 Alleys and Garages for T4 Transect Zone Single Family Detached Houses ~ Village | of the Town of Whitehall 73 Transect Zone Single Family Detached House with setback garage ~ Village | of the Town of Whitehall 0034589,00047New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 14 3 Transect Zone Single Family Detached Houses with side garage ~ Village | of the Town of Whitehall 13 Transect Zone Single Family Detached House with side garage Village 1 of the Town of Whitehall (on034599,00047New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 15 Alleys for T4 Transect Zone Townhouses ~ Village 1 of the Town of Whitehall (00024589,000%7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 16 Alleys and Garages for T4 Transect Zone Single Family Detached Houses ~ Village | of the Town of Whitehall 0024589,00047New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use Tune 5, 2018 Page 17 Alleys and Garages for T4 Transect Zone Single Family Detached Houses ~ Village | of the Town of Whitehall T4 Transect Zone Single Family Semi-Detached / Twin Houses ~ Village | of the ‘Town of Whitehall 1024589,000%.7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 18 Village | of the Town of Whitehall (00038589,00047New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 19 Village | of the Town of Whitehall (00034589,00047New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 20 Paynter’s Mill (00084589.000%7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 21 Paynter’s Mill Paynter's Mill 00024529,000%7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 22 Paynter’s Mill Paynter’s Mill 00034589.00047New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 23 Paynter’s Mill Paynter’s Mill 00034589,000%.7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 24 Village of Five Points (00038599,00047New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018, Page 25 Village of Five Points Village of Five Points 00034589.000x7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 26 Village of Five Points 0024589.000.7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June $, 2018, Page 27 Village of Five Points In stark contrast, the following photographs reflect the design of more typical subdivisions that have a segregation of housing types and are designed based upon the automobile and without a focus on creating innovative walkable communities of communities are common, but they are not consistent with the design p Village and Hamlet Code. These types ciples of the 00094589,000%.7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 28 Cars dominating the front of townhouses as a result of having driveways and garages located in the front of the homes. 0034589.000%.7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 29 ‘Townhouses with garages and driveways located in the front. With no alley access, trash and recycle collection is also in the front of the homes. Cars are the main feature of the community as a result of having driveways and garages located in the front of the homes. 00034589.000%7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 30 Cars are highly visible as a result of having driveways and garages located in the front of homes. (00024589,00047New Castle County Planning Board and ‘New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 31 Without alley access, the proximity of townhouses results in the elevated presence of ears in the front of the homes. Without alley access, the proximity of townhouses results in cars being parked on the sidewalk. 00094589.000%.7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 32 Without alley access, the narrow lot widths result in almost a continuous impervious and unattractive surface. With the garage flush with the house and parking permitted in the driveway portion between the house and the sidewalk, cars become the prominent feature of the home. 0034589,000%.7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 33 Same as above. Again, cars are highly visible when garages are flush with the homes 00024589,000%.7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 34 Automobiles are prominent in the front of the homes in the community. (00034589.000%.7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 35 With garages flush with the house, vehicles often park on the sidewalk and affect pedestrian safety. Same as above. 0024589,00047New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 36 With the high density and narrow lot widths (as narrow as 18 feet) of the T4 Transect Zones, the Village and Hamlet Code requires that these homes have rear alleys in order to ensure an attractive, safe, and walkable community, Despite the intent to have only rear access for the twin houses, townhouses, and T4 single houses, the New Plan for Hamlet 4 is proposing to have 73 of the 222 these housing types (32.9%) not only have garages in the front of the houses, but also have parking in the driveway. With pedestrians having to walk across curb cuts and maneuver around cars pulling into and out of lots possibly every 18 feet, “walkability” is discouraged; not to mention that it is very unattractive. Similarly, the variances for the single family detached houses seeking to permit both parking in the portion of the driveway between the house and sidewalk and the construction of garages flush with the houses, will only stand to create a community where the automobile is highly visible and the main feature. These variances would also have the effect of discouraging a walkable community and the likelihood of cars creating safety hazards by parking on the sidewalk is also greatly increased. ‘The variances seeking to eliminate the streetscreens in the form of a wall, fence, or hedge masking the open parking areas would make the automobile even more prominent in the community. Likewise, the variances seeking to expand driveway widths will essentially create mini “parking lots” throughout Hamlet 4. These proposed variances are simply more hinderances on pedestrian comfort and discourage “walkability.” Susan Henderson, who is a principal with Placemakers, LLC, was the original author of the Village and Hamlet Code for New Castle County. Not only did the County expend a significant amount of time in drafting and implementing the Village and Hamlet Code, the County paid Placemakers a significant sum of money to provide this innovative ordinance. Ms. Henderson has reviewed the requested variances for the New Plan and is adamantly opposed to them. A copy of her letter addressing the Hamlet 4 variances is attached to this letter. In sum, the variances being requested are seeking to permit the New Plan to deviate significantly from the intents and purposes of the Village and Hamlet Code. Diversity of the community is largely absent and the walkability of Hamlet 4 would be essentially eliminated if the variances were approved. Granting this level of variances would completely undermine the years and years of meetings and efforts between the community, Land Use Department, Planning Board, County Executive, and County Council that went into implementing the Village and Hamlet Code. (00024589,000%.7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 37 he Variances Requested Establish a Clear and Undesirable Precedent If the requested variances were approved, they would establish a clear and undesirable precedent that will allow any current or future developer in Southern New Castle County to, without any rezoning, present a plan as a Hamlet or Village to receive the increased density permitted, then seek numerous variances to convert the plan into a conventional subdivision. In fact, we have no doubt that numerous developers are eagerly awaiting the results of this Application and, if the requested variances are approved, plan to submit similar plans shortly thereafter. As noted above, the New Plan has a density of 3.16 lots per acre - over double what would be permitted under traditional Suburban (S) zoning, If approved, the variances ‘would essentially eliminate the need for any developers of a property of over 50 acres in Southern New Castle County from having to seek a rezoning. Developers would simply design their plans under the guise of Villages and Hamlets to obtain increased density by right, and then seek numerous variances, as is the case here, to avoid the strict standards found in the Village and Hamlet Code. Thus, the developers would receive all of the benefits of rezoning without actually having to go through the process of rezoning. ‘The Proposed Variances are Not Consistent with the Goals and Aspirations of the New Castle County Comprehensive Development Plan The Comprehensive Plan provides that the “adoption of the Village and Hamlet development option encourages the incorporation of the principles of smart growth in developing complete communities that will function as traditional towns.” Creating innovative and walkable communities under the Village and Hamlet Code is a linchpin of the Comprehensive Plan, In addressing the objectives of future development with Villages and Hamlets, the Comprehensive Plan provides: The distinct character and personality of each community should be preserved and enhanced by new development and redevelopment, but all can serve as centers of community activity and interaction and as alternatives to conventional suburban development . . . . Walkability and access to open spaces and parkland are important components of mixed use centers... In addition to increasing housing opportunities, walkable mixed-use districts provide residential options for people who cannot or will not drive Designing for a pedestrian friendly, transit supportive and lively streetscape requires greater attention to overall design and integration of movement ‘00034589,000%7‘New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 38 patterns... over vehicles, Parking is in the rear and pedestrians are given priority ‘The proposed variances are contrary to the goals and aspirations of the Comprehensive Plan and certainly should not be included in a Plan masquerading as a “Hamlet”, but which is in fact just a conventional subdivision. ‘The Proposed Variances Do Not Meet the Standards for Subdivisions Variances ‘The proposed variances do not meet the standards for subdivision variances as set forth in Section 31.452 of the New Castle County Unified Development Code. The Code provides that to approve a variance from subdivision standards, the Planning Board must find the following: 1. There is a practical hardship for the development of a site if the development must adhere to the standard; 2. The standard, as applied in this instance, creates conflicts in other sections and makes compliance difficult or unreasonable; 3. The site conditions, topography, size, shape, or other natural features make strict adherence difficult or impossible; or, 4. The Department recommends that the subdivision would be better designed if the variance were granted. The proposed variances clearly do not meet any of these standards. With respect to the first criterion, there is no practical hardship for the development of the site if it must adhere to the standards of the Village and Hamlet Code. The best evidence of this is the fact that the Original Plan for Hamlet 4 did not require a single variance. These variances are self-imposed, solely out of a desire to cut construction costs (reduced driveway lengths, no alleys, etc.), increase value, and create distinct and separate sections of housing types. ‘The argument provided in the Application for the variances to permit wider driveways with parking in the portion of the driveway between the house and the sidewalk is that “[t]he [single family detached houses] require two parking spaces per lot, so to maintain required parking without counting garage spaces, the first layer area is considered for parking for front loaded units.” ~ again — is completely self-imposed as the applicant also proposes a variance that shortens the driveways by placing the garages flush with the homes. 3 00034889,000%7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 39 Site conditions, topography, size, shape, or other natural features do not make adherence to the Village and Hamlet Code difficult or impossible. Any such issues can be resolved by simply relocating the housing types to other areas, i.e. place T3 single family detached houses (no alley required) in areas where placing an alley would be difficult due to topography, as was the situation in the Original Plan Finally, and most importantly, the design of Hamlet 4 is clearly not consistent with the goals and aspirations of the Village and Hamlet Code or the desire to create walkable and diverse communities. Not only is the Hamlet 4 Plan contrary to the development principles of New Castle County, it also runs counter to the development principles being implemented across the country ~ the increasing desire to create innovative and cutting- edge communities that are pedestrian oriented. It would be illogical to suggest, in 2018 with the advancement and refinement of planning principles, that Hamlet 4 with the requested variances is a “better” Plan than if it was complied with the applicable design standards of the Village and Hamlet Code. ‘The County Code still provides a Iandowner/applicant, through Suburban (S) or Suburban Transition (ST) zoning, the avenue to build a conventional subdivision ~ they simply cannot seek to do so under the pretense of a Village or Hamlet. ‘The Premature Requests for the Subdivision Variances are Procedurally Deficient and Violate the Code and New Castle County Policy ‘The request for the subdivision variances is procedurally deficient. The New Exploratory Plan for Hamlet 4 as well as the Application for Subdivision Variances was submitted by letter dated the same exact day ~ May 10, 2018. However, according to the County website, the New Exploratory Plan for Hamlet 4 was not accepted until May 15, 2018, while the fees for the Subdivision Variances were accepted a day before on May 14. 2018. Shortly thereafter, the Subdivision Variances were advertised in the News Journal on May 19, 2018 — two days before the Department of Land Use issued comments on Hamlet 4’s Exploratory Plan, on May 21, 2018. ‘The County Code requires that an application for subdivision variances must include “[a] copy of the department of land use letter or response that contains the issue(s) or regulation(s) that is being appealed or for which a variance is being requested.” It is very impressive and commendable that the Department of Land Use reviewed the New Plan in three to four business days, but the Variance Application was still filed a week before the Department letter was even issued. ‘Therefore, the Application was premature, and thus the public notice and tonight's hearing are, likewise, premature. 00034589.000K7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 40 Conclusion The Applicant has very cleverly created a Plan that provides it with a residential density that is only achievable in the Suburban Transition (ST) zoning classification, even though the property is zoned Suburban (S). Rather than 1.3 homes per acre, the Applicant is seeking 3.16 homes per acre. By posturing its Plan as a “Hamlet”, the Applicant is attempting to achieve the higher density and then request these variances, which essentially reduces the Plan to a conventional subdivision. Worse yet, the Plan eliminated many of the creative and innovative design features that, otherwise, make Villages and Hamlets pedestrian friendly. The requested variances, if approved, would negate all of the County's years of effort and financial investment that resulted in the adoption of the modern, innovative, and cutting-edge “SmartCode”, which is embodied in the Village and Hamlet Ordinance. This is no different than if a developer of a mixed-use project (such as Linden Hill Station) designed a project of retail shops and restaurants, but the second and third floor “apartments” were merely facades, with no actual apartments, You can attempt to call it a mixed-use project, but it’s really just a shopping center, and not consistent with the Code. The Applicant has told us it would be serving chateaubriand and béamaise sauce, but has delivered a steak and Al sauce. There is nothing wrong with a steak and Al sauce, but it’s not chateaubriand! Send it back! Reghectfiflly sibmittgd, Larry/J..TArapico: 00034589,0004.7New Castle County Planning Board and New Castle County Department of Land Use June 5, 2018 Page 41 Attachment: Letter from Susan Henderson of Placemakers ‘oo0245#9.0007Susan Henderson EST 505.975.3258 susandplacematerscom $136 Sevila Avo NW Albuquerque, NM87120 May 25, 2018 Now Castle County Planning Board 67 Reads Way New Castle, Delaware Re: June 5 Agenda App. 2018-0290-SV Subdivision Variances Dear Board Members, As the original author of the New Castle County Hamlet end Village Design in 2007, I feel compelled to comment on the App. 2018-0290-SV request for variances. Each of these requests are contrary to the intent of the standards, and by blending conventional suburban form with the higher density permitted with Hamlets and Villages, this development could, produce the worst of both options. Subdivisions and Hamlets and Villages are two different operating systems and require two very discrete sets of standards. This includes block size, connectivity, streetscape, public space, building types, mix of uses, and most importantly parking location. Please see the image below for illustration of the difference between the development types. Cre tir | During the adoption process of Hamlets and Villages, a critical criteria for all stakeholders, including the community, Planning Department, Planning Board, County Executive, and County Council, to support the increased densities, was the pursuit of walkability and diversity of housing. Unfortunately each one of the requested variances explicitly undermine thosegoals. I will describe below the impact of each of these requests relative to the intent of the standards, Request (1) to permit 18-foot wide driveways in the first layer in T3 and T4 Transect Zones (10- foot maximum) Impact. The goal of the 10-foot driveway is to assure itis used for access only, and not for parking. Walkabilty and safety are immediately reduced when the street frontage becomes @ de facto parking lot. This standard was influenced by the most walkable streets in New Castle County such @s Woodlawn Avenue pictured below. Even inthis front-loaded condition, similar to the T3 Transact Zone, the narrow driveways assure the parking occurs behind the houses.Asis obvious from a subdivision near Governor's Square Shopping Center below, the effect of wide driveways is always the creation of a parking lot, and thus the reduction in walkability. In addition to walkabilty, cars parked adjacent to the sidewalk introduce a hazard to pedestrians, Particularly childran. When driveways occur every 20 to 40 feet and are wide enough to become the primary parking location, many points of conflict with pedestrians are created and can result in unintended injury. E Request (2) to permit front loaded lots in the T4 Transect Zone (rear lanes or rear alleys required) for 73 lots [(19) single family detached lots -11-21, 26-33; (32) townhouse lots ~ 280-287, 293.316; (22) twin lots - 34-39, 68-83] Impact. This variance request may have the single most negative impact of all six requests The direct and negative impact on walkability is very similar to the issue above with parked cars and safety. However, wth the increased density of T4, and the lot width as narrow as 18 feat for townhouses, the front setback may be a single large parking lot. (Old New Castle has some of the most walkable neighborhoods in the region, and even in the mid-Atlantic, with vary compact housing types. In contrast, most of the contemporary townhouses in the region are setting in a sea of parking. While assisting with the purpose to“create a range of housing choices and opportunities,’ towns and twins that are configured with front-loaded access destroy the purpose to “create walkable neighborhoods.” ‘The image below is a marketing illustration of a regional project that illustrates the impact of the front-loaced townhouse, even though there are no cars in the image for marketing purposes. Just imagine what this street is like when all of the driveways are full of cars. Below that isa photo from Old New Caste, ilustrating the walkable quality of denser housing options, if parking is off the alley or on the street.Request (3) to permit parking areas in the first layer in a T4 Transect Zone (parking areas are permitted in the second or third layer of a T4 Transect Zone for 73 lots {(19) single family detached lots - 11-21, 26-33; (32) townhouse lots - 280-287, 293-316; (22) twin lots - 34-39, 68-83 and Request (5) to permit open parking areas in the first layer in the T3 Transect Zone: (open parking areas are required to be located in the second and third lat layers) Impact. The permission for parking within the front setback is expressly in opposition to Section 40.25.105 Purpose, subsection D. Create walkable neighborhoods. The argument for parking location being behind the building, or at least setback 20 feet fram the front face of the building, has been made in prior requests. However, the regulations were drafted with layers of requirements at many levels to assure this does not happen. As mentioned earliar, the permission of parking in the front setback assures the sidewalk will be blacked with cars as illustrated in the image below. Request (4) to provide limited or no streetscreen for open parking areas in T3 and T4 Transect Zones (open parking areas shall be masked from the frontage by a building or streetscreen} Impact. Parking visibility is @ primary barrier to pedestrian activity. Many studies of social behaviors in towns and neighborhoods show when a person approaches a parking lot they ‘turn around or cross the street, Removing the walls or hedges that soften or obscure parking areas has a direct negative impact on the purpose of walkabilty.This is particularly important in higher density areas where guest parking is added to augment onsite parking. Parking that is visible from the sidewalk or street has a negative impact on walkability and should be avoided. In situations where itis located on the side of a building ‘his can easily be solved with an evergraen hedge. Request (6) to permit garages to be located in the second layer of the T3 Transect Zone (garages are requited to be located in the third lat layer). Impact. Permitting garages to be flush with or the primary facade of the residence has a direct negative impact on the public realm. The requirement of the 20 foot setback allows the driveway parking to occur behind the front ofthe residence and assures that cars will not block the sidewalk. coNctUsION To summarize, every request made is directly in conflict with Section 40.25.105 Purpose, subsection D, Create walkable neighborhoods. ll requests are about the priority of automobile storage over the pedestrian experience, While the Hamlet and Village Design standards make ample provision for cars, the goal ofthe ordinance was to begin to think about the pedestrian and cyclist as well. Creating human-scaled places requires rethinking how we store our automobiles. This letter is not written with the intent of blocking the development. However, setting the precedent of providing variances from the critical pieces of Hamlet and Village Plans essentially changes the future of development under Section 25.100. Ifa variance for items clearly stated as the intent of the standards are permitted, the purpose of the standards cease 40 be relevant. ‘This application and variance requests leverage all ofthe fiscal benefits of Hamlet and Village Plans, such as the increased density, without providing the amenity of an improved public realm. The tradeoff for density was always intended to be walkable, communities of character; places where investment was to be made in streets and parks. Finally, according to the standards set by Section 40.31.452 the subdivision variance must prove all of the following 1, There is a practical hardship for the development ofa site ifthe development must adhere to the standard; 2. The standard, as applied in this instance, creates conflicts in other sections and makes compliance difficult or unreasonable; 3. The site conditions, topography, size, shape, or other natural features make strict adherence difficult or impossible: or,4, The Department recommends that the subdivision would be better designed if the variance were granted. The fiscal benefits of the density offset any practical hardship of following the parking location standards. The parking location standards are consistent throughout section 25.100, with no conflicts and the adjacent development proceeding under these standards prove the standards not unreasonable. While the topography of the site is rolling, the steeper areas may be used for T3 zones, which permit front-loaded lots, thus item 3. Is not applicable. While Ido not know what the recommendation of the Planning Department is at this time, it doesn't seem possible for these variance requests to prove the first three of the required standards, Sincoraly yours, Susan Henderson, Principal PlaceMakers, LLC