City of Falls Church Planning Commission Public Hearing

Transcription

1 City of Falls Church Planning Commission Public Hearing Meeting Date: Title: Variance application V by Tim Luwis, a variance to Sec to allow a 30 percent reduction in the required parking spaces, on premises known as 419 W. Broad Street and 421 W. Broad Street, RPC#s and of the Falls Church Property Records, zoned B-1 (Limited Business), said property owned by Tim Luwis. Agenda No.: 5A Title: Variance application V by Tim Luwis, a variance to Sec and Sec to allow a rear yard setback of 10 feet instead of 20 feet on the southern property line and side yard setback of 10 feet instead of 20 feet on the western property line, both of which abut the R-M (Multi- Family) zone, to permit the construction of a new hotel on premises known as 419 W. Broad Street and 421 W. Broad Street, RPC#s and of the Falls Church Property Records, zoned B-1 (Limited Business), said property owned by Tim Luwis. Proposed Motion: Approval with Planning Commission Recommended Conditions That the Planning Commission provide a recommendation of approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variance applications V (variance to Sec to allow a 30 percent reduction in the required parking spaces (from 86 to 60)) and V (variance to Sec and Sec to allow a rear yard setback of 10 feet instead of 20 feet on the southern property line and side yard setback of 10 feet instead of 20 feet on the western property line), for a 78- room hotel to include the following conditions to be finalized during the site plan review phase: 1. The Applicant shall work with staff during site plan review to finalize a full Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and a Parking Management Plan (PMP) that meets the Applicant s objectives and is approvable by the City Manager, or his/her designee, to support the requested parking reduction; 2. The Applicant shall provide parking spaces as shown on the site plan, as ultimately approved, and absent a parking agreement with an adjacent owner(s), all parking for the hotel use shall be provided on-site. All new parking shall be constructed, screened by landscaping and/or barriers, and maintained in accordance with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, except

2 Page 2 as modified and approved by Variances V and V and site plan waivers approved during the site plan review phase; 3. The Applicant shall provide verbal and written instructions to hotel guests and visitors that all parking for the hotel use is to occur on-site, is not to be located on adjacent properties, and that violations of such instructions may result in towing from said adjacent properties; 4. The Applicant shall install directional signage on the property directing hotel guests to on-site parking, and shall specifically note that off-site parking on adjacent properties is prohibited; 5. The Applicant shall include on the site plan a suitable potential location for inter-parcel access to the adjacent parcel to the east for potential future vehicular circulation and offsite shared parking; 6. The Applicant at site plan shall provide additional windows on the east and west elevations, to break up the predominantly brick façade and be more consistent with the street façade, and the east and west facades over the garage; 7. The Applicant at site plan, shall design and construct the adopted Streetscape Plan for West Broad Street along the frontage of the site; 8. The Applicant shall design and construct a masonry wall along the western and southern property lines. The maximum height of the wall along the western property line within the front yard setback (20 feet from curb) shall not exceed four feet. The height of the wall along the remainder of the western property line and the entirety of the southern property shall be a minimum of six feet and up to seven feet, due to grade. A new wood fence shall replace the existing chain link fence along the eastern property line. New fences and/or walls should be finished on the exterior sides and maintained in an attractive condition; 9. The Applicant shall provide additional screening in the form of evergreen and deciduous trees in the proposed landscape area along the west elevation of the building per the recommendations of the City Arborist during site plan review; and 10. An approval of these two variances are only for the two requested variances that are depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan dated August 10, 2015 and discussed in this staff report. An Exhibit B, dated October 13, 2015, was included in the October 20, 2015 parking analysis, which depicts a 167-foot long potential overflow parking lane along the western property line. This proposal creates the need for two additional variances; one for parking within a yard setback and one for reducing the drive aisle width to 16 feet. This Exhibit B is not to be considered as part of this review and is not

3 Page 3 supported by staff. Originating Dept. Head: James B. Snyder, Director of Planning and Development Services JBS Report Prepared By: Carly Aubrey, Senior Planner CMA Akida Rouzi, Senior Planner REQUEST: The Applicant submitted the following two variance applications, for approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals and a recommendation by the Planning Commission, in association with their conceptual development proposal for a new hotel at 419 W. Broad Street and 421 W. Broad Street. Variance application V by Tim Luwis - a variance to Sec to allow a 30 percent reduction in the required parking spaces (from 86 to 60), on premises known as 419 W. Broad Street and 421 W. Broad Street, zoned B-1 (Limited Business), for the construction of a new hotel. Variance application V by Tim Luwis - a variance to Sec and Sec to allow a rear yard setback of 10 feet instead of 20 feet on the southern property line and side yard setback of 10 feet instead of 20 feet on the western property line, both of which abut the R-M (Multi-Family) zone, to permit the construction of a new hotel on premises known as 419 W. Broad Street and 421 W. Broad Street, zoned B-1 (Limited Business). The Applicant is requesting the two variances due to the existing lot orientation and narrow width of the properties. Per Sec of the Zoning Code, the applications are being presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. If the Variances are approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Applicant intends to submit a site plan for the proposed development of a new 78 room four-story hotel that will replace the current Inns of Virginia four-story hotel and the Falls Church Florists building. BACKGROUND: The Applicant is proposing to consolidate the properties at 419 and 421 W. Broad Street for redevelopment. The site is currently occupied by an existing four-story hotel and two-story retail use, both of which would be demolished to allow the construction of a new 78 room four-story hotel. At this time, what is before the Planning Commission for consideration is the above referenced variance applications (Attachment 1). Preliminary review of the variance plans has identified six (6) waivers (landscaping, screening, buffers and entrances) associated with the

4 Page 4 development proposal (Attachments 2-5), which would be reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission at the site plan phase. The proposed development was discussed at the Planning Commission workshop on September 21, Several items of concern were raised by the Planning Commission and staff, primarily in regards to variance justification, parking management, building design, and buffering/screening of the property. On September 30, 2015, a revised parking tabulation (Attachment 6) was provided based on a 78 room hotel, as opposed to a 76 room hotel that was indicated on the application submittal letter and conceptual development plan. The number of rooms and required parking spaces has been updated throughout this report. Additionally, a variance justification letter (Attachment 7), dated October 5, 2015, was received and is further discussed below under Variance Request Analysis. At the October 5, 2015 Planning Commission hearing, John Chanel, an owner of the Lee Square Apartments, stated that they were in support of the project but did have some concerns related to the requested parking reduction, lighting, noise, screening, and stormwater runoff. He stated that they would like to see a 15-foot high masonry wall with giant arborvitae trees to provide a visual and noise buffer, outdoor lighting designed to not spill onto the adjacent apartments, and a French drain installed to address runoff from the impervious parking lot. The Architectural Advisory Board discussed the proposal at their October 7, 2015 meeting (Attachment 9). The AAB inquired about the provided parking relative to the number of rooms and food service and about design requirements from corporate headquarters. The applicant indicated that the proposed parking would be adequate to meet the expected occupancy and staff level, and that the branding elements were a directive from the corporate entity. The item was continued by the Planning Commission at their October 5 and October 19 public hearings to allow the Applicant sufficient time to submit the necessary documents in support of variance applications V and V , and work with staff to address and/or include the following items as conditions: 1. That the Applicant submit a stronger justification in support of the requested parking variance application in the form of a comprehensive parking study that reflects the parking demand based on similar properties for the proposed Holiday Inn Express hotel and increased number of guest rooms; 2. That the Applicant submit a stronger justification for the requested setback variance; 3. That the Applicant shall work with staff during site plan review to draft a satisfactory Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and a Parking Management Plan (PMP) and

5 Page 5 provide a Vehicular Shuttle for guests in support of the requested parking reduction, subject to Planning Commission approval; 4. That the Applicant explore/provide an offsite shared parking agreement to accommodate periods of peak parking demand. Any agreement should be in accordance with Sec of the Zoning Code. A shorter term of years than required by code may be considered as part of the variance, and would provide for periodic evaluation of the necessity of an agreement; 5. That the Applicant at site plan shall provide additional windows on the east and west elevations, to break up the predominantly brick façade and be more consistent with the street façade, and the east and west facades over the garage; 6. That the Applicant at site plan, design and construct the required Broad Streetscape along the frontage of the site, and 7. That the Applicant design and construct a wall and/or decorative fence along the western and southern property lines. New fences and/or walls should be finished on the both of the exterior sides and maintained in an attractive condition; and 8. That the Applicant provides additional screening (e.g. higher hedge/trees/and or decorative fence) in the proposed landscape area along the west elevation of the building per the recommendations of the City Arborist during site plan review. The Applicant has provided additional information in support of the requested variances. These are discussed in the Staff Review and Analysis section below. At the November 2 and 16, 2015 Planning Commission public hearings, the item was continued in order for the Applicant to have discussions with the adjacent property owners, Robert Beach, Lee Square Apartments, and the Winter Hill Condominium Association. The joint owner of the Lee Square Apartments, John Chanel, reiterated his concerns about the project that are discussed above and stressed that he was not supportive of the project if no landscaping is proposed along the western property line. Additionally, Robert Beach, the owner of the adjacent commercial property at 417 West Broad Street, spoke about his concerns regarding the project. These concerns were related to insufficient parking, parking layout and emergency exits, driveway location, potential damage to his property from a fire at the hotel, snow removal, proposed trees along the property line, and masonry tones of proposed hotel not harmonious with adjacent buildings. Individuals from the Winter Hill condominiums expressed concerns about parking, buffering along southern property line, and noise associated with heating/cooling systems at the hotel. On November 19, 2015, the Applicant met with Mr. Beach to discuss Mr. Beach s concerns regarding the proposal. Also on the 19 th, a meeting with City staff, the Applicant, and representatives from Lee Square Apartments and Winter Hill condominiums was held. The results of these meetings are discussed below in the Staff Review and Analysis section.

6 Page 6 TIMING: An advertised BZA public hearing for final consideration of this item will be scheduled for the December 17, 2015 BZA public hearing. A Planning Commission recommendation is required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a motion to provide a recommendation of approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variance applications V (variance to Sec to allow a 30 percent reduction in the required parking spaces (from 86 to 60)) and V (variance to Sec and Sec to allow a rear yard setback of 10 feet instead of 20 feet on the southern property line and side yard setback of 10 feet instead of 20 feet on the western property line), for a 78-room hotel to include the following conditions to be finalized during the site plan review phase: 1. The Applicant shall work with staff during site plan review to finalize a full Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and a Parking Management Plan (PMP) that meets the Applicant s objectives and is approvable by the City Manager, or his/her designee, to support the requested parking reduction; 2. The Applicant shall provide parking spaces as shown on the site plan, as ultimately approved, and absent a parking agreement with an adjacent owner(s), all parking for the hotel use shall be provided on-site. All new parking shall be constructed, screened by landscaping and/or barriers, and maintained in accordance with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, except as modified and approved by Variances V and V and site plan waivers approved during the site plan review phase; 3. The Applicant shall provide verbal and written instructions to hotel guests and visitors that all parking for the hotel use is to occur on-site, is not to be located on adjacent properties, and that violations of such instructions may result in towing from said adjacent properties; 4. The Applicant shall install directional signage on the property directing hotel guests to on-site parking, and shall specifically note that off-site parking on adjacent properties is prohibited; 5. The Applicant shall include on the site plan a suitable potential location for inter-parcel access to the adjacent parcel to the east for potential future vehicular circulation and offsite shared parking; 6. The Applicant at site plan shall provide additional windows on the east and west elevations, to break up the predominantly brick façade and be more consistent with the street façade, and the east and west facades over the garage; 7. The Applicant at site plan, design and construct the adopted Streetscape Plan for West Broad Street along the frontage of the site;

7 Page 7 8. The Applicant shall design and construct a masonry wall along the western and southern property lines. The maximum height of the wall along the western property line within the front yard setback (20 feet from curb) shall not exceed four feet. The height of the wall along the remainder of the western property line and the entirety of the southern property shall be a minimum of six feet and up to seven feet, due to grade. A new wood fence shall replace the existing chain link fence along the eastern property line. New fences and/or walls should be finished on the exterior sides and maintained in an attractive condition; 9. The Applicant shall provide additional screening in the form of evergreen and deciduous trees in the proposed landscape area along the west elevation of the building per the recommendations of the City Arborist during site plan review; and 10. An approval of these two variances are only for the two requested variances that are depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan dated August 10, 2015 and discussed in this staff report. An Exhibit B, dated October 13, 2015, was included in the October 20, 2015 letter, which depicts a 167-foot potential overflow parking lane along the western property line. This proposal creates the need for two additional variances; one for parking within a yard setback and one for reducing the drive aisle width to 16 feet. This Exhibit B is not to be considered as part of this review and is not supported by staff. STAFF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS: Project Summary Property Size (Area).75 Acres / 32,683 Square Feet Present Use Commercial Use (Hotel and Retail) Subject Property Existing Zoning B-1, Limited Business Subject Property Future Land Use Business Adjacent Zoning North B-1, Limited Business South R-M, Residential Multi-Family East B-1, Limited Business West R-M, Residential Multi-Family Proposed Use 78 Room Holiday Inn Express Maximum Building Height By Right 55 Feet Proposed Height Feet Land Use Requests/Applications 1. Variance application V to allow a 31 percent reduction in the required parking spaces, from 86 spaces required to 59 spaces proposed. 2. Variance application V to allow a rear yard setback of 10 feet instead of 20 feet on the

8 Page 8 Applicant entire southern property line ( feet); and side yard setback of 10 feet instead of 20 feet along 228 feet of the western property line, both of which abut the R-M (Multi-Family) district zone. Tim Luwis Subject Site The subject site and existing properties consist of two commercially zoned parcels. The current uses include an existing four-story hotel (Inns of Virginia) and a two-story retail use fronting on West Broad Street. The properties to be consolidated for redevelopment are both owned by Tim Luwis and include the following parcels: Commercial Properties Square Feet Acres Existing Zoning Existing Land Use Future 419 W. Broad 18, B-1 Business 421 W. Broad 13, B-1 Business Zoning Code Compliance The subject site is zoned B-1, Limited Business. Hotels are listed in the B-1 zoning district as a use permitted by right. Sec of the Zoning Code contains the off-street parking standards. The proposed 78 room hotel requires 86 total parking spaces. The Applicant is proposing 60 parking spaces; therefore a variance requested is to allow for a 30 percent reduction in the required parking spaces. The second variance requested is for setback encroachments, specifically 10 foot setbacks, where 20 feet is required, along the southern and western property lines, both of which abut the R-M (Multi-Family) zone, to permit parking spaces (Sec ) and building encroachment (Sec ). In addition to the two variances requested, the applicant is seeking six waivers that would be considered during the site plan review phase. Comprehensive Plan Consistency The site is designated Business on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and is within the Opportunity Area 4 Village Section. The Village Section extends along West Broad

9 Page 9 Street from Little Falls Street to near Spring Street and contains a variety of commercial and residential uses housed in an assortment of building styles ranging from large office buildings, large residential condominium and retail buildings, to single-family houses converted to office or retail establishments. The proposed use, while not under review and consideration at this time, is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Thorough review of the project based on the Comprehensive Plan and the City s Design Guidelines is pending site plan submission, which would follow a favorable BZA action. The site is abutting residential districts to the immediate east and south of the proposed development. The surrounding residential areas are designated High Density Residential on the Future Land Use Map. With the requested variances for side yard encroachment and parking reductions, contextual sensitivity and potential for parking spillover among other potential negative impacts associated with the development, that can be considered disruptive to the residents, should be taken into consideration as the project moves forward. The conditions that are recommended for the two variances aim to reduce any potential adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Variance Request Analysis Code of Virginia defines a variance as: a reasonable deviation from those provisions regulating the shape, size, or area of a lot or parcel of land or the size, height, area, bulk, or location of a building or structure when the strict application of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property, and such need for a variance would not be shared generally by other properties, and provided such variance is not contrary to the purpose of the ordinance. It shall not include a change in use, which change shall be accomplished by a rezoning or by a conditional zoning. The BZA must grant a variance if the evidence shows that the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or that the granting of the variance would alleviate a hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property or improvements thereon at the time of the effective date of the ordinance, and (i) the property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith and any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance; (ii) the granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area; (iii) the condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance;(iv) the granting of the variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise permitted on such property or a change in the zoning classification of the property; and (v) the relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available through a special exception process that is authorized in the ordinance pursuant to subdivision 6

10 Page 10 of or the process for modification of a zoning ordinance pursuant to subdivision A 4 of at the time of the filing of the variance application. [Code of Virginia ] October 5 and October 19, 2015 Planning Commission Meetings The item was continued by the Planning Commission at their public hearings to allow the Applicant sufficient time to submit additional information in support of variance applications V and V , and work with staff to address several site plan related items and/or include them as conditions. These items are listed below with a discussion on the additional information that has been provided by the Applicant. Requested item: That the Applicant submit a stronger justification for the requested setback variance. Submitted information: A variance justification letter (Attachment 7) was received on October 5, Staff Analysis: The Applicant s justification for the setback variance is similar to the parking variance in that the two existing properties, even when combined, are too narrow and of insufficient size to accommodate an economically viable commercial building if required parking and buffering adjacent to residential districts are met. The proposed design and layout of the new hotel will reduce the current non-conforming situation on the subject properties. The existing hotel encroaches 10 feet into the required 20 foot setback/buffer area for 132 feet along the western property line, while the new hotel would encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot setback/buffer area for 67 feet along western property line. Along the southern property line, the existing parking lot encompasses the entirety of the required 20 foot buffer area. The proposed plan depicts a 10 foot landscaped buffer along the southern property line. Requested item: That the Applicant submit a stronger justification in support of the requested parking variance application in the form of a comprehensive parking study that reflects the parking demand based on similar properties for the proposed Holiday Inn Express hotel and increased number of guest rooms. Submitted information: A variance justification letter (Attachment 7) was received on October 5, An additional letter, dated October 20, 2015, (Attachment 8) was submitted with supporting information from Wells & Assoc. and IHG (Holiday Inn) regarding parking data from hotels in the D.C. metro area. Additionally, traffic count information for the Falls Church Inns of Virginia was submitted with the application, as well as parking space to room ratios for the other two Inns of Virginia locations (Alexandria and Arlington).

11 Page 11 Staff Analysis: The Applicant s justification for the parking variance is based on the existing characteristics of the two subject properties and the economic viability of the existing hotel. The two existing properties, even when combined, are too narrow and of insufficient size to accommodate an economically viable commercial building if required parking and buffering adjacent to residential districts are met, and that the expense of underground or structured parking is not financially feasible. The Applicant also states that the existing hotel is functionally and physically obsolete, and to build an updated hotel meeting current marketplace demands would not be possible on this site without receiving the requested variances. The Applicant provided parking data to support their justification for the parking variance. The key component of this justification is the ratio of parking spaces to hotel rooms. The existing hotel s parking space to room ratio is 65%. The proposed hotel s ratio would be increased to 76%. The on premise parking information included nightly parking count data from April 15, 2015 through September 13, 2015 (excluding June). The average actual parking demand ratio during this time frame was 57% (daily parked cars/daily rooms rented). There were 11 instances during the 122 day study where there were more cars than parking spaces. In these instances, a few cars were double-parked, which according to the Applicant, is a normal practice, particularly in urban locations. Furthermore, the draft TDM/PMP (Attachment 10) states that hotel employees do not park during the same times as hotel guests. Hotel employees primarily use the hotels parking lots between 8am to 4pm. Hotel guests primarily use the hotels parking lots between 8pm to 7am. Therefore, it is unnecessary to accommodate for hotel staff and guest parking during the same time periods. Additional parking space to room ratio was provided by Wells & Associates for five hotels in the D.C. metro area. The parking space/room ratio for these five hotels average 53%, and the actual parking space demand/room ratio was 30%. Staff s concern with this data is that (1) the day and time that the parking demand data was obtained is not mentioned, and (2) these five hotels are in densely urban locations within 0.4 miles (average) from a metro station, whereas the subject property is not located within as dense an area and is within 1.5 miles (average) from the nearest metro. However, the Applicant stated that the two other Woodbridge Hotel, LLC establishments are similar to the Falls Church location and have not experienced over-parking issues. These two locations are in Arlington and Alexandria with parking space to room ratios of 74% and 78%, respectively. Additionally, staff conducted a parking study in June 2015 of recent developments in the City, which included the Hilton Garden Inn. The weekday peak and average for parking space occupancy at this hotel was 38.6% and 35.3%, respectively. These counts were conducted seven times during a one-week period. An Exhibit B, dated October 13, 2015, was included in the October 20, 2015 parking analysis that depicts a potential 167-foot long overflow parking lane along the western property line. This proposal creates the need for two additional variances; one for parking within a yard

12 Page 12 setback and one for reducing the drive aisle width to 16 feet. This Exhibit B is not to be considered as part of this review and is not supported by staff. Only the two requested variances depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan dated August 10, 2015 and discussed in this staff report are under consideration. Requested item: That the Applicant shall work with staff during site plan review to draft a satisfactory Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and a Parking Management Plan (PMP) and provide a Vehicular Shuttle for guests in support of the requested parking reduction, subject to Planning Commission approval. Submitted information: The Applicant has committed to working with staff during the site plan review phase on these items. Staff Analysis: A draft TDM and PMP is included as Attachment 10, which would be finalized during the site plan review phase. The TDM and PMP has been reviewed and accepted by the Applicant. The combined TDM and PMP recognized that different strategies may work better for different buildings and sites and that travel behavior may change over time. Therefore, the draft TDM/PMP includes adaptive management strategies such as offsite shared parking agreement if needed. Requested item: That the Applicant explore/provide an offsite shared parking agreement to accommodate periods of peak parking demand. Any agreement should be in accordance with Sec of the Zoning Code. A shorter term of years than required by code may be considered as part of the variance, and would provide for periodic evaluation of the necessity of an agreement; Submitted information: The Applicant does not have an offsite shared parking agreement at this time. Staff Analysis: The Applicant has worked with staff to draft a TDM and PMP to develop strategies for successful on-site parking management. A condition of approval is proposed to finalize the draft TDM and PMP which includes an offsite shared parking agreement as an adaptive management strategy. Requested item: That the Applicant at site plan shall provide additional windows on the east and west elevations, to break up the predominantly brick façade and be more consistent with the street façade, and the east and west facades over the garage; Submitted information: Revised architectural renderings were submitted (Attachment 3).

13 Page 13 Staff Analysis: The Applicant is working with an architect to explore the placement of additional windows. A revised architectural rendering, dated November 24, 2015 is provided in Attachment 3. Final architectural and elevation plans would be provided during the site plan review phase. Requested item: That the Applicant provides additional screening (e.g. higher hedge/trees/and or decorative fence) in the proposed landscape area along the west elevation of the building per the recommendations of the City Arborist during site plan review. Submitted information: The Applicant has submitted a Landscape Screening Exhibit, dated November 23, 2015 (Attachment 4) which depicts additional screening along the west elevation of the building. Staff Analysis: The following condition is proposed: The Applicant shall provide additional screening in the form of evergreen and deciduous trees in the proposed landscape area along the west elevation of the building per the recommendations of the City Arborist during site plan review. Requested item: That the Applicant at site plan, design and construct the required adopted Streetscape Plan for West Broad Street along the frontage of the site, and Submitted information: The Conceptual Development Plan dated August 10, 2015 (Attachment 2) depicts a streetscape section along Broad Street. Staff Analysis: It appears that the streetscape section on the CDP is consistent with the adopted Streetscape Plan for West Broad Street and would be confirmed during site plan review phase. Requested item: That the Applicant design and construct a wall and/or decorative fence along the western and southern property lines. New fences and/or walls should be finished on the both of the exterior sides and maintained in an attractive condition. Submitted information: The Applicant intends to design and construct a brick wall and/or decorative fence along the western and southern property lines. Revised architectural renderings (Attachment 3) and the Landscape Screening Exhibit (Attachment 4) were submitted showing a masonry wall along the Lee Garden Apartments property line. Staff Analysis: The following condition of approval is proposed: The Applicant shall design and construct a masonry wall along the western and southern property lines. The maximum height of the wall along the western property line within the front yard setback (20 feet from curb) shall not exceed four feet. The height of the wall along the remainder of the western property line and

14 Page 14 the entirety of the southern property shall be a minimum of six feet and up to seven feet, due to grade. A new wood fence shall replace the existing chain link fence along the eastern property line. New fences and/or walls should be finished on the exterior sides and maintained in an attractive condition. November 2, 2015 Planning Commission meeting The item was continued at the November 2 meeting by the Planning Commission in order for the Applicant to discuss the project with adjacent neighbors to the east and west. Mr. Robert Beach, the owner of the adjacent commercial property to the east (417 West Broad Street), spoke about his concerns regarding traffic flow, parking, and safety. correspondence between the property owners is provided in Attachment 11. Additionally, in a discussion with staff, the owner of the Lee Square Apartments, Mr. John Chanel, reiterated his concerns about the project, primarily that there is no landscape buffer proposed along the western property line adjacent to the apartments. The Applicant and Mr. Chanel had discussed the possibility of installing landscaping on the apartments side of the property line at the Applicant s expense; however, Mr. Chanel felt it would decrease the already small yards for those tenants and that screening improvements should be done on the Applicant s property. Both neighboring property owners inquired about the possibility of flipping the layout of the building and parking lot. The Applicant has indicated that this was considered, however doing so would create the following issues: Additional reduction in required number of parking spaces due to property configuration (angle of the lots along the southern property line); the upper levels of the building would be closer to the western property line since there would not be the 23 drive aisle separation, and it would also encroach into the 20 setback deeper into the site; the ground level stair and upper levels would be abutting the western property line (R-M zone), where it is currently shown to abut the eastern property line (B-1 zone), as opposed to the 10-foot buffer depicted in the current design; it would result in cars parking closer towards the apartments, versus having a mostly vacant drive aisle; and it would not result in enough width to have a viable landscape buffer and masonry wall along western property line. November 16, 2015 Planning Commission meeting The item was again continued at the November 16 meeting by the Planning Commission in order for the Applicant to discuss the project with adjacent neighbors to the east, west, and south. On November 19, 2015, the Applicant met with Mr. Beach to discuss concerns related to the parking and setback variance request, as well as more site plan related concerns (e.g. architecture, EMS

15 Page 15 services, signage, landscaping). The Applicant has agreed to additional conditions specific to the parking variance concerns: The Applicant shall provide parking spaces as shown on the site plan, as ultimately approved, and absent a parking agreement with an adjacent owner(s), all parking for the hotel use shall be provided on-site. All new parking shall be constructed, screened by landscaping and/or barriers, and maintained in accordance with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, except as modified and approved by Variances V and V and site plan waivers approved during the site plan review phase. The Applicant shall provide verbal and written instructions to hotel guests and visitors that all parking for the hotel use is to occur on-site, is not to be located on adjacent properties, and that violations of such instructions may result in towing from said adjacent properties. {Staff note: The draft TDM/PMP currently includes the following plan element under Monitoring and Enforcement, The hotel will have an internal policy that ensures hotel staff continuously monitor the parking lot s availability and capacity. The hotel also intends to issue parking passes to guests at check-in, which will further enable the hotel to monitor and maintain an appropriate parking ratio. This additional condition language will be included in the final TDM/PMP}. The Applicant shall install directional signage on the property directing hotel guests to on-site parking, and shall specifically note that off-site parking on adjacent properties is prohibited. Also on the 19 th, a meeting was held with City staff, the Applicant, and representatives from Lee Square Apartments and Winter Hill condominiums. Winter Hill requested relocation of the trash enclosure away from the southern property line. Attachment 12 depicts the new location, which also resulted in the addition of a parking space. Winter Hill also requested a greater setback along the southern property line; however that would have resulted in a further reduction of parking spaces. Alternatively, Winter Hill requested landscaping on their property along the proposed new masonry wall, which the Applicant is willing to install. Specifics regarding this would be addressed during site plan review phase with suggestions from Winter Hill. Finally, Winter Hill requested that a shared parking agreement be considered at this time. The Applicant and staff are comfortable with this option being included as an adaptive management strategy in the TDM; and Mr. Beach has indicated he is willing to consider a shared parking agreement if it is determined to be necessary. Lee Square Apartments primary concern is the buffering and screening along the western property line. The Applicant did consider flipping the layout of the proposed design to provide a greater buffer along that side, however as discussed above, that would result in a number of other issues. Attachment 4 depicts a proposed buffer in addition to the 6-7 foot new masonry

16 Page 16 wall. The five existing trees on the Lee Square side would be removed and replaced with +7 Zelkovas which do not have lower limbs, therefore not interfering with the areas between the patios and new wall. Lee Square Apartments replied that while they generally favor the redevelopment of the subject site, they would not want buffer trees planted on their property. They proposed the trees planted one foot from the wall on the subject site with bollards around them. The City Arborist has indicated that to plant trees along the western side on the subject site a minimum four foot planting strip would be needed, thus reducing the drive aisle on that side to 19 feet, requiring another variance, and making the use of 90 degree parking along that side difficult to safely use. Correspondence associated with these meetings is included in Attachment 13. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Variance application and supporting documents 2. Conceptual Development Plan, dated August 10, Architectural Plans revised, dated November 24, Landscape Screening Exhibit, dated November 23, Elevation Plans, dated September 15, Revised Parking Tabulation, dated September 30, Variance Justification Letter, dated October 5, Parking Analysis for Proposed Holiday Inn Express and Suites, dated October 20, Architectural Advisory Board meeting minutes, October 7, Transportation Demand Management and Parking Management Plan 11. s from Lee Square Apartments, dated October 1, 2015; Robert Beach, dated November 6, 2015; and Tim Luwis, dated November 6, Trash relocation exhibit, dated November 23, Letter and correspondence re: adjacent property owner concerns