WILLIAMSBURG PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Transcription

1 WILLIAMSBURG PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, The regular monthly meeting of the Williamsburg Planning Commission was held on Wednesday,, at 3:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Stryker Building, 412 North Boundary Street, Williamsburg, Virginia. CALL TO ORDER and ATTENDANCE Chairman Driscoll called the meeting to order. Present in addition to Mr. Driscoll were Commissioners Bill Kafes, Dan Quarles, Greg Ballentine and Demetrios Florakis. Commissioners Sarah Stafford and Chris Connolly were absent. Staff members present were Planning Director Reed Nester, Deputy Planning Director Carolyn Murphy, City Attorney Christina Shelton, Zoning Administrator Rod Rhodes and Secretary Donna Scott. MINUTES Mr. Quarles moved that the Commission approve the minutes as submitted for the Regular Meeting on April 18. Mr. Ballentine seconded the motion which carried by roll call vote of 5-0. Recorded vote on the motion: Aye: Quarles, Kafes, Driscoll, Florakis, Ballentine Nay: None Absent: Connolly, Stafford CONSENT AGENDA SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS SPR #10-005: G-Square, Inc./2229 Richmond Road Sno-To-Go new parking lot exit and bathroom addition. The Commission approved the exit and addition by a vote of 5-0. Recorded vote on the motion: Aye: Quarles, Kafes, Driscoll, Florakis, Ballentine Nay: None Absent: Connolly, Stafford PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioner Florakis stated that as a member of 1406, LLC, he will recuse himself from this case. Mr. Florakis moved from the dais to the audience. The following two cases were reviewed simultaneously: PCR #12-005: Request of 1406, LLC, to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create the Planned Development Urban District PDU. This district will allow multifamily and student dwellings to be established with an approved development plan. Dwelling unit occupancy is no more than two unrelated persons in an efficiency or onebedroom dwelling unit, and no more than four unrelated persons in a two or more

2 Page 2 bedroom dwelling unit. Permitted residential density is 56 bedrooms/net acre, equal to the 14 four-bedroom apartments/net acre allowed in the Planned Development College District PDC (Tribe Square), and PCR #12-006: Request of 1406, LLC, to rezone 2.64 acres at 1406 Richmond Road (Quality Inn & Suites) from B-3 General Business District to PDU Planned Development Urban District. This property is designated as General Commercial land use by the Comprehensive Plan. Permitted uses and residential density in the PDU District is described in PCR # It is proposed to convert the existing building to City Lofts, a project with 94 one-bedroom student dwellings, plus a two-bedroom manager apartment, with a proposed density of 38 bedrooms/net acre. The Commission recommended to City Council that the PDU District be created and that 1406 Richmond Road be rezoned from B-3 to PDU, and approved the conceptual plans and conceptual architectural plans for the City Lofts development and the management plan for the student dwellings by a vote of Planning Director Nester presented the proposal to convert the existing Quality Inn & Suites at 1406 Richmond Road from a 118-bedroom hotel to City Lofts, a 94, onebedroom student apartment complex. This will require a new zoning district (PDU Planned Development Urban), rezoning the property to the new district and approving a development plan and management plan for the project. This is the same procedure that was used for the Tribe Square project on Richmond Road. The applicant states in the City Lofts Management Plan that The owner s goal is to create the premier off-campus student housing community in the market. We want to deliver the highest level of comfort, security, maintenance, and convenience to our residents. Amenities provided include fitness rooms, computer lounge, dining area, study rooms, swimming pool and bike garage. The proposed PDU District regulations state that only property designated as General Commercial land use and which does not front on Richmond Road or Monticello Avenue is eligible for rezoning to the PDU District. The proposed City Lofts project fronts on New Hope Road and Middle Street. The 2006 Comprehensive Plan, Housing Plan, seventh goal is to: Develop an adequate solution to college student housing. City regulations should encourage appropriate student-oriented housing off-campus to supplement the housing provided by the College. The proposed PDU District is an addition to the Planned Development section of the Zoning Ordinance which currently consists of the PDR Planned Development Residential District (used for Brandywyne and Capitol Landing Green), and the PDC Planned Development College District (used for Tribe Square). The PDU District has been designed to address the specific City Lofts proposal with the thought that it could

3 Page 3 be used in the future if it were desired to redevelop any of the existing apartment complexes in the Midtown Planning Area. The permitted dwelling unit occupancy in the PDU District would be two unrelated persons in efficiency or one bedroom dwelling unit, and four unrelated persons in a two or more bedroom dwelling unit. The only permitted residential uses would be multifamily dwellings and student dwellings. Management for student dwellings would be required to be provided by either the College of William and Mary or in accordance with a management plan that is approved as part of the rezoning and which provides for prompt and adequate performance of regular and emergency upkeep and maintenance on the complex and all dwelling units therein. The proposed City Lofts project is located in an area that is served by Williamsburg Area Transport and has a wide variety of commercial services within walking distance. The proximity of this area to the college makes these apartments very attractive for helping to meet the need for college student housing. The proposed project also takes a poorly located and underperforming hotel out of circulation and replaces it with a project that satisfies a need for increased student housing. John Tarley, Jr., with Tarley Robinson Attorneys & Counselors at Law, representing the owners/applicants, noted the presence of the four members of the 1406 LLC., Sandy & Elaine Garber and Nicolas & Demetrios Florakis. Mr. Tarley presented a power point description of the proposed project. In response to Mr. Kafes question, Mr. Tarley said the projected timetable for the project is to have it opened for the 2013 school year. Regarding the permitted number of occupants, Mr. Kafes said he would be more comfortable if in the management plan the occupancy is limited to just persons as opposed to related or unrelated. In response to Mr. Ballentine s question, Mr. Tarley said there won t be a restriction in the lease stating that a person has to be student at William & Mary, but based on the location, William & Mary students will probably be the market most likely to rent there. Regarding possible elimination of the swimming pool, Mr. Tarley noted that currently the estimate for the renovation of the site is $2 million. The pool renovation would be separate, very expensive and have liability issues, so the decision whether or not to eliminate it from the plans will be made later. Sandy Garber responded to Mr. Ballentine s question about the proposed kitchens. He said they will be small but fully equipped with stove, refrigerator and a dishwasher, they will be standard appliances, but in a limited amount of space. Chair Driscoll opened the Public Hearing. Tom Gillman, 601 Richmond Road, spoke in favor of the project noting the demand is there and this is a good way of addressing that demand. He said the parties involved have been very successful in adaptive reuse of other properties, e.g. transformation of the former Southern Inn property into the City Green Condominiums and the Cook

4 Page 4 property on Scotland Street. Mr. Gillman said he knows the devil is in the details, but this project sounds like it s a two thumbs up project. David Kranbuehl, 201 Harrison Avenue, supports Mr. Gillman s comments and thinks Mr. Florakis has done an exceptional job with City Green and all his other properties. From everything we see, this is the right place, the right time and satisfies the right need. Mr. Kranbuehl said the questions raised by the Commission are good ones, and as Mr. Gillman noted, the devil is in the details, but he strongly supports everything that is being proposed in the project. Stewart Goddin, 715 Goodwin Street, said on the face of it the proposed project seems to make a lot of sense and will provide sorely needed extra housing for William & Mary students. However, he said he has a number of questions about the problem of unintended consequences: What happens if student demand does not materialize and/or the accommodations need to be rented to non-students? Can the applicant rent to non-students without submitting another PDU request? Can the applicant legally refuse to rent to non-students? If the rooms are rented to non-students, will the demand on City services increase? What are the traffic consequences? What about the promises of appropriate oversight and maintenance? The submitted maintenance plan conflicts with what is said in the proposed PDU District. Has the City estimated what impact will result from the loss of room tax and meal tax revenue by losing the hotel? Whether it s significant or non-significant, it would be nice to know. What will be the fiscal impact to the assessed values? Mr. Goddin said he is especially concerned if it should turn into a multifamily dwelling unit, not a student-housing unit; the demands on City services would substantially increase. As the proposed ordinance now reads, Mr. Goddin said it seems to establish a very large PDU District; it is a major proposal. He asked why this proposed new district doesn t go through the Comprehensive Plan review process. Mr. Goddin said the proposed PDU regulations do not require multifamily dwellings to have safeguards applied, as they are to student housing, and the area proposed for the PDU District could lead to a very substantial increase in density in the City. Whether it s a good idea or a bad idea it needs to be discussed. Traffic on Richmond Road and Monticello could turn out to be a major concern, especially if the project turns out to be a non-student population. Mr. Goddin said comparing this project to Tribe Square isn t comparing apples-to-apples since Tribe Square is under the purview of the college and its discipline and honor codes. The height of the structures should be part of the Comprehensive Plan review process. Any proposal as large as the PDU District should

5 Page 5 not have the decision of whether or not a traffic analysis should be done left to the discretion of the Planning Director and Planning Commission; anything that large should require a traffic impact study, and the cost for a fiscal impact study should be the responsibility of the developer, not the City. There being no additional comment the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Kafes said that although there are some risks such as the demand not developing as projected, he favors the project. He noted the City s goal of increasing the amount of affordable housing, the two-bedroom units could accommodate a small family or seniors and student-housing opportunities would be increased. Chair Driscoll said he likes what he has seen and read about the project and thinks it is a good adaptive reuse. He noted that when he has driven by the existing hotel, there have not been many cars in the parking lot so loss of tax revenue does not appear to be an issue. Mr. Driscoll agreed with Mr. Kafes that sometimes we need to take a chance and this project makes a lot of sense. Mr. Ballentine said he understands the concerns, especially those expressed by Mr. Goddin, however, what is the alternative for this site? Currently it is an establishment that is going nowhere. He asked if it can legally be restricted to a student rental, and Ms. Shelton replied that the City did not open up the PDC District which is exclusively student housing, although she would need to check to see if it was specified as William & Mary students only. Mr. Nester added that as the rezoning ordinance is written, it is for student rental only. In response to Mr. Ballentine s question, Mr. Nester explained that expanding the PDU beyond this particular site could have applicability in the adjoining area that is now shown as high-density multifamily land use. He added that the Planned Development Districts are not designed to rezone a broad area with no specific plan. Mr. Ballentine said he is very much in favor of the project. Mr. Quarles moved that the Commission recommend to City Council that the PDU District be created and that 1406 Richmond Road be rezoned from B-3 to PDU. This includes approval of the conceptual plans and conceptual architectural plans for the City Lofts development and the management plan for the student dwellings. Mr. Kafes seconded the motion which carried by roll call vote of Recorded vote on the motion: Aye: Quarles, Kafes, Driscoll, Ballentine Nay: None Recuse: Florakis Absent: Connolly, Stafford

6 Page 6 PCR #12-007: Amendment of the LB-2 Limited Business Neighborhood District by the revision of permitted and special use permit uses (Secs , and Multifamily dwellings of ten or less dwelling units and a variety of commercial uses (including hotels/motels, museums/art galleries, offices, restaurants and retail sales establishments) will be allowed as permitted uses. Multifamily dwellings with more than ten dwelling units and restaurants with a drive-thru window will require a special use permit. Residential density will be 14 dwelling units/net acre by right. These changes are intended to provide more flexibility for establishing new uses in this area, which is in the City s designated Arts District, and PCR #12-008: Creation of a Midtown Parking District which will establish special parking requirements for the properties within the Parking District. This District will cover the properties located in the LB-2 Limited Business Neighborhood District. Residential parking regulations will be unchanged except that the visitor parking requirement for multifamily dwellings will be eliminated. Hotels/motels will require one parking space per bedroom. All other business uses will have a uniform parking requirement of one space for each 400 square feet of floor area. These changes are intended to provide more flexibility for establishing new uses in this area, which is in the City s designated Arts District. The Commission recommended to City Council by a vote of 3-2 that the amendment of the LB-2 District be denied and that the issue be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan review process. The Commission recommended to City Council by a vote of 3-2 that the creation of a Midtown Parking District be denied and that the issue be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan review process. Planning Director Nester presented the request from the Williamsburg Economic Development Authority (EDA) for review of the parking and use requirements in the Arts and Cultural District. The objective is to streamline the regulations and reduce the requirement for special use permits as much as possible to encourage redevelopment and adaptive reuse to allow creative businesses to locate in the District. Mr. Nester noted that the use changes that will be discussed today only apply to the existing LB-2 District areas. No changes in uses or residential density are proposed to any of the adjacent residential areas. Mr. Nester reviewed the Proposed Changes to the LB-2 District which include: Permitted Uses Proposed Additions and Deletions Special Use Permit Uses Stays the Same Residential Density Proposed Change Another concern raised by the EDA has been with the off-street parking regulations, which have been an impediment to some uses proposed in the District. The parking

7 Page 7 regulations in the Arts District base off-street parking on the gross floor area of the specific use. For example, an office requires one space per 400 square feet of floor area, a retail store requires one space per 200 square feet of floor area, and a restaurant requires one space per 100 square feet of floor area. This means that additional parking is required to change from office use to retail use and from retail use to restaurant use. Under the existing parking regulations, in order for the bakery on Bacon Avenue to have a small inside café area with table and chairs, they were required to have additional parking that they could not provide due to the physical constraints of the property. For the 24 commercial buildings in the Arts District there are 367 off-street parking spaces, with an average of one parking space for each 260 square feet of floor area. There are about 108 on-street parking spaces available in the Arts District. Staff recommendation is that a Midtown Parking District be created that coincides with the boundaries of the Arts District, which includes all of the LB-2 District, the adjoining RS-3 District, and portions of the adjoining B-3 District. The Midtown Parking District would have special regulations designed specifically for this area, as was done when the Downtown Parking District was created and expanded. With the creation of a Midtown Parking District, there is the possibility that it could be expanded to serve the entire Midtown Planning Areas as the implementation of the 2012 Comprehensive Plan progresses. This change would allow greater flexibility for existing buildings used for business uses, and since the parking requirement is the same for all uses, uses can be changed between any permitted business use without providing additional off-street parking. It would allow the prime determinant of business uses to be market demand rather than off-street parking requirements, and would provide additional flexibility for constructing new buildings in the area. Mr. Nester reviewed the impacts the changes would have on a new 10,000 square foot building and requirements for the proposed Midtown Parking District. Tom Gillman, vice-chair of the EDA, said he appreciates the quick attention given to the letter of request the EDA sent to the Planning Commission. He noted that 15 months ago the Arts District was created and since then seven businesses have opened and 32 jobs were created. The District has been a success but there have been impediments to future growth. Mr. Gillman gave a couple of examples of existing businesses in the District that could benefit from the changes in the parking requirements and noted the increase in vehicular traffic in the area and that a relaxation in the parking requirements is very much in order. He thanked the Commission for their work and said he appreciates their efforts. Chair Driscoll opened the Public Hearing. Nancy Canning, 209 Nelson Avenue, said she lives about five minutes from the area that would be impacted by the two proposals. She noted that she has sent a detailed letter to the Commission expressing her questions and concerns regarding the

8 Page 8 proposals. She said she chose to convey her opinion on actual paper and sent through the mails because she feels that the magnitude of the proposals call for more communication via a more substantive and lasting medium than the virtual realm of cyberspace. Her four points were: Timeframe under which these proposals are being considered Spatial area/geographic location to be directly impacted by the proposals The substance of each proposal Conclusions and recommendations Ms. Canning said the proposals were introduced to the Commission in a memorandum from Planning Director Nester on April 24 and a public hearing was scheduled for the next regular meeting of the Commission. The Commission was urged to consider the proposals and reach their decisions as quickly as possible. With the scope and importance of the proposals this was not enough time. In addition, the public hearing takes place during working hours making it difficult or impossible for the public to attend and only three minutes are allowed for speakers to express their views; too brief. The timeframe in which the Commission is urged to reach their decision is too brief. Ms. Canning called for due deliberation, careful consideration and formats more conducive for in-depth analysis on the Commission s part and for public participation on the part of the citizenry. Regarding the special area/geographic location to be impacted, the specific locations to be permanently altered by these proposals need to be examined. The proposed location encompasses a patchwork of districts which is confusing and contradictory. Ms. Canning reviewed the substance of the two proposals noting the additional permitted uses, deleted permitted uses and density and size of buildings permitted. She said that such drastic changes call for closer and lengthier consideration than possible in today s hearing. The second proposal, regarding the creation of the Midtown Parking District, is a major change. Ms. Canning said at least four things are wrong with the proposal: (1) the 108 on-street parking spaces mentioned are in the residential area and residents already occupy the spaces, (2) traffic will not be primarily by foot, bicycle or public transportation as suggested since visitors to the community will have their vehicles, (3) the Prince George Parking Garage is a major reason why that downtown business area is a good example of a successful parking model, and (4) the flexibility of business use and parking options afforded by shopping centers as a role model to argue for the drastic reduction of off-street parking requirements in the limited business area being discussed is not an accurate model. She said it is not mentioned that shopping centers are located by ordinance in commercially zoned areas, characterized by large parking lots and/or parking garages.

9 Page 9 Ms. Canning said in the first proposal it is being argued to increase without limit the allowable size of buildings, increase without limit the allowable by-right square footage of restaurants and retail shops, and to almost double the allowable by-right residential population density. In the second proposal, it is being proposed to drastically reduce offstreet parking requirements. She said that these proposals, viewed both separately and together, do not compute and in conclusion she said they call to her mind the double speak in George Orwell s 1984 in which words mean the opposite of what they say. Orwell s vision seems to have come to life in 2012 Williamsburg. The first proposal seeks to transform a limited business area zone into an unlimited business zone. The second proposal seeks to combine a limited business zone, a residential neighborhood, and an Arts District into a midtown parking district with no place to park. She urged the Commission to reject the proposals until more time and more conducive circumstances are provided that allow for more deeply and thoroughly investigated options to be explored by all members of the Williamsburg community. Greg Granger, Williamsburg homeowner as well as the owner of a number of other properties in the area, said he believes some of the changes are quite possibly very good for furthering the Arts District. He is not convinced that some of the changes will advance the cause of a residential neighborhood and does not know if they are achieving the same thing. One of his concerns is the notion that schools, playgrounds, parks, churches and day care centers would be outlawed in this area. As Williamsburg is a town that is designed for families, for people to reside and grow, he would like for those uses to at least be something that is possible by a special use permit rather than just being illegal in that area. Mr. Granger said he has had a number of people approach him wanting to put a hooka bar in one of his properties. Although he does not know enough about it to know if it is a good or bad thing, he has directed them to contact the City and thus far the answer has been that it is not allowed. However, perhaps that is the type business that would be appropriate in the Arts District, and if it is, is it the type business that would be allowed with the proposed changes? In regard to the parking issue, Mr. Granger said there are a number of businesses, such as Goodbye Timeshare, where the employees don t reside at the office space, but along the street, Delaware Avenue, is resident parking with decal only. At the very front of the street parking is for two hours requiring that the employees shuffle their cars. He asked if there is a possibility to make the decal a resident/business decal parking so a business that is there does not require a shuffling of employee cars. He said he understands that we don t want it to be satellite parking for students or for people who are looking to dead head a car for several days or weeks, which happens on the next street over, Shirley Avenue, where there is no parking restriction. However, the businesses should be able to park their cars there for the workday without being towed or ticketed, and he would like that to be considered.

10 Page 10 Henry Coleman, 606 College Terrace, said he is concerned about the development of this area of Williamsburg. The City has been trying for many years to encourage single families to move in and to retain our housing stock; we have an unfortunate ratio of homeowner/rental dwellings. The density suggestions in this proposal leave one to worry whether we can afford to develop this property in the manner that it is suggested it could be and yet not provide parking. This impacts not only the business area but also the residential area. As has been stated, there is parking on Lafayette Street, Wythe and Delaware and there is only one of the streets that has parking by permit only, red zone. Most of the time those streets have very little parking available, so to consider the expanding of businesses on Richmond Road in this particular area, without providing parking, is obviously saying that the adjoining neighbors will have to absorb these automobiles. Like other communities, the City of Williamsburg is concerned with business development, but where will they go when they come to Williamsburg? Richmond Road has many vacancies available and he would be delighted to see businesses move in, but there are not a lot of parking spaces. Mr. Coleman said that although he would like to see business development, he, like some of his neighbors, fears that we are making moves too hastily. If there is one thing that we cannot afford to do it is to make a hasty move that causes the further deterioration of residential housing. This will not help those fragile neighborhoods and will not encourage people to buy the houses in those neighborhoods. We have a history that tells us that it is very difficult to convert single-family homes back into single-family homes once they hit the rental market. The parking district idea, before it has been carefully considered, is stillborn. Contact with the community is needed. We are going at this with too broad a stroke and not considering the long-term impact. Steward Goddin, 715 Goodwin Street, said these are very major proposals that could very fundamentally alter a very large, important part of the City. It has to be done right and we need to spend the time to be sure it is done right. The EDA has asked for greater flexibility to attract businesses, but the thrust of the request seems to be to allow larger hotels, restaurants, retail establishments and bigger multifamily apartments while reducing parking requirements. He said that one of the questions that comes to his mind is the vision for the area beyond the boilerplate goal of achieving a vibrant mixeduse area; what does that mean? Is the goal to develop a district dominated by artists and studios or is the goal to redevelop the area putting in top-of-the-line, expensive restaurants and retail, and the artists can just get lost because they won t be able to afford to be in that area? Mr. Goddin said he is confused. The City hired the consultant Art Scape to do a survey to determine what this area should be used for, and he does not understand the relationship between these proposals and the work of the Art Scape people. Regarding density, is greater density desired in this area? Under the proposal, there will certainly be greater density. Who will provide the sidewalks and streetscape investments which will have to be installed if visitors are expected to walk up from the parking garage? Parking is currently tight and more business and lower parking

11 Page 11 requirements will just make it worse. Where will the cars go? One of the places they will try to park is at the shopping center, but that is privately owned and eventually there will be towing of vehicles belonging to non-paying car owners; is this the image we want to present? Another place parking spaces will be sought after is in the nearby neighborhoods where parking is already an issue. It may be a good idea, but as others have said, we need to take our time and think it through carefully and see what the Art Scape consultants come back with and proceed in a more rational and thoughtful manner. David Kranbuehl, 201 Harrison Avenue, president of West Williamsburg Heights HOA, said he agrees with the preceding comments. He complimented the EDA saying they are a fantastic committee that has visionary thoughts. He said he is pleased to know the proposals do not come from the EDA but are City staff s response to the request in the letter that something be done. Regarding the process, he said he didn t know about this until last week. With help from City staff, he was able to download the 95-page information from the computer and he found it confusing. He suggested they be sent out in separate sections so that a particular section can be downloaded. His second concern is that the information was not on the City s website until last Wednesday. Mr. Kranbuehl said his point is that this is a very big area, a big issue and a very big decision. This is a major corridor coming into town and we need to have a vision of what will go there. When he thinks of an Arts District, he thinks of tiny houses with people selling their creations or a bakery; something like Carmel or Monterey in California. We need to think about the corridor and the transition coming into the City. We need to take our time and think about this because there is a lot of resident interest and no notification. Mr. Kranbuehl offered a couple of suggestions: No drive-in food restaurants in the area from Monticello Avenue to Brooks Street. Drive-ins should be eliminated as a special use permit. All buildings going into the area must have a pitched roof; the Wells Fargo flat roof does not fit along this section of Richmond Road, and the City Green development is gorgeous. He said the parking issue is about as well thought out as was the fly-over proposal years ago. Allowing a retail business to change to a restaurant with the smallest parking requirements would be a disaster. Allow by a special use permit a change in parking regulations at a certain location. Let s not get so streamlined that everything is uniform. We need to remember the huge unknown of what is going to happen to the shopping center. In conclusion, Mr. Kranbuehl said just make minor changes like the special use permit for the parking requirements, require pitched roofs, eliminate drive-ins and turn the attention to where the EDA has some very visionary thoughts, develop the Triangle Building downtown and think about building another parking garage because we don t

12 Page 12 have a firm picture of the future. He said that however the Commission decides to go forward, please appropriately publicize so the community can respond and develop a vision for the shopping center. Jerry Petroe, 1105 Lafayette Street, asked what could be built in the area across the street from him. He said his understanding is that conceptually there could be a threestory apartment building or a large restaurant under the new proposal. Mr. Nester responded that under the existing ordinance a ten-unit apartment building could be built by-right and above the ten units a special use permit would be required with the number of units allowed depending on the size of the lot. Mr. Petroe noted that the three-story height of the Chesapeake Payment Center building permits the occupants to look right into his back yard and he was not notified prior to the construction. He added that when construction was planned across the railroad tracks from him in York County, he was notified by the County that the future residents might be able to look into his back yard, but nobody similarly notified him when the Chesapeake building was proposed right next door. Some property owners own entire blocks in this area and his concern is that a very large building could be built on one of the blocks between Richmond Road and Lafayette Street that would completely destroy the character of the RS-3 area. Terence Wehle, 412 Harriet Tubman, expressed his concern with the process and the speed of the process. He added that a lot of this discussion should be part of the Comprehensive Plan review process. He urged the Commission to table or delay the proposals and incorporate it into the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Wehle said that in general, zoning regulations are made for a reason and it perplexes him a little that we have one zoning that we created just a couple of years ago and now we need to change everything. That zoning was created carefully with months of discussion and we need to go slower when assuming it is not working. Regarding the parking issue, he said we often talk about the downtown parking and how it is successful and it is successful in the sense that it has opened up a lot of businesses. However, it hasn t really been implemented yet because only the Mad About Chocolate business has any customers. He suggested we wait until everything is filled and vibrant then we can look at the parking and other areas. Commissioner Quarles said he would like to clear up what seems to be a misconception. Under the existing ordinance, someone could build a 10,000 square foot building byright. A building larger than 10,000 square feet would require a special use permit. It has always been the case that someone could build a 10,000 square foot building and it has also always been the case that someone could build a building larger than 10,000 square feet with a special use permit. Mr. Nester confirmed this adding that the proposed amendment remains the same on this issue. We are not making it easier to build a bigger building.

13 Page 13 Mr. Quarles clarified that what the proposal is doing is making the uses for buildings under 10,000 square feet more flexible by having some uses that currently require a special use permit, moved to a use that is permitted by-right. This is talking about buildings that are not big behemoth buildings having the flexibility to change the use without a special use permit. Mr. Quarles said the parking changes may result in more changes in the neighborhood, and suggested that if people park wherever they please and are ticketed, they will get the message very quickly. He added that in his neighborhood, once the parking decals were put in place the parking issue was eliminated. The anecdotal stories that we ve heard about the Flakey Baker and the Extraordinary Cupcakes and that the parking ordinances are getting in the way of these businesses succeeding, does not make sense; we ve got to take the ordinances and get them out of the way of businesses being successful. If we are going to have an Arts District that is going to succeed, then that is what we need to do; we can t apply these cookie-cutter, suburban ideas about parking to an Arts District. Mr. Ballentine said the City and the community spent over a year analyzing the Arts District concept and it needs to be considered in that context, and of course we all want the District to succeed. The parking issue is a big one. Only about 20% of the homes are owner occupied and although there are plenty of places along Lafayette to park at this time, once school begins the area gets completely backed up. The EDA and Mr. Nester have done a great job in preparing a kernel of something that can now be analyzed. When he went on the City s website recently and looked at the Arts District information he found a statement acknowledging that if existing zoning and ARB guidelines are prohibiting the success of the Arts District, the City might look at whether loosening the ARB or zoning regulations would assist the District and, he noted, that is certainly what we are doing. However, it also said that any change to these codes would affect property owners land use, so it would go through an extremely rigorous notification and public hearing process. The statement goes on to say that if it even looks like changes are needed, the City would rely on feedback from the property owners, their tenants and prospects as part of the process of identifying any need for the changes. Mr. Ballentine said we see a need and there is potential, but we need to put it off and analyze the issues as well as have discussion with the community. Mr. Kafes said he agrees with Mr. Ballentine s remarks about proceeding with this very complicated issue. He said he is not at all comfortable that any action should be taken on either of the proposals at this time and thinks they should be put off and considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Kafes added that it is very important to protect the adjacent residential areas from commercial issues. Mr. Kafes commented that regarding the proposed zoning changes to the LB-2 District to make it easier to develop certain areas, the reason so many requirements were put in place for special use permits for many of the uses was to control the situation and try to

14 Page 14 minimize the impact on the adjacent areas. He thinks it made a lot of sense and he is not comfortable with the thought that it all gets wiped out. The parking issue It is a complicated issue as others have said, but he takes a different position than others. He thinks there is a big difference between a bakery and a bakery with tables and chairs. Picking up donuts requires five minutes whereas if you were to sit with friends and eat a few donuts, that would take minutes during which time a parking space would be unavailable to others. Mr. Florakis stated that he agrees with a lot of what has been said, but would like additional clarification on the comment Mr. Granger made about people dead heading their cars on streets such as Shirley and Delaware and asked if things are controlled with the decals. {Comments heard from the audience were negative.} Mr. Nester replied that only one of the side streets, Delaware, has residential permit parking. On the other side of Richmond Road, Matoaka Court and College Terrace have residential permit parking. Mr. Florakis asked how it is planned to control the 108 spaces not only for the residences, but also for the businesses. Mr. Nester said the 108 spaces noted in his memorandum are unrestricted parking spaces and did not include the 14 spaces on Delaware that are residential permit parking. In response to Mr. Florakis questions about the time restrictions placed on the spaces, Mr. Nester said there was no recommendation to make any changes beyond what we have today. City Attorney Shelton noted that the regulation of streets with restricted parking is not a function of zoning, there is a separate section of the code that deals with that issue so City Council would make those decisions. Mr. Florakis said he thinks the Arts District is a great thing and we need to do everything we can to be sure it succeeds, but there are a lot more components to a successful arts district than these few amendments, such things as wayfinding signs and something that designates the area as an arts district. Chair Driscoll thanked all those who came to the meeting to make comments. He noted that the 800-pound gorilla we have no control over is the Williamsburg Shopping Center, it is not the City s property and who knows what will happen to it. Mr. Driscoll said, to simplify, he believes the intent upon receiving the letter from the EDA was to rectify the handful of obvious situations. At the Commission s recent work session, which is open to the public, the issue was discussed and it was not the intent to open this to a ten or twenty block area but to address the handful of problems in a logical manner. Mr. Driscoll noted that it appears from comments from the audience as well as the Commission, that there are too many unanswered questions to go ahead with a vote today; Commission members agreed with Chair Driscoll s assessment. Mr. Kafes moved that the proposals be tabled to be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Ballentine seconded the motion, however Ms. Shelton raised the issue of once the Commission receives a request for a public hearing on an issue they have 100 days to act on it. The issue can be tabled but Commission will have to make a recommendation to Council within the 100-day period. Another option would be for the EDA to withdraw their request and it would be off the table for

15 Page 15 the time being, but state code states that a recommendation needs to be made at this time. Commission members discussed options available and Mr. Kafes withdrew his motion to table. Mr. Kafes moved that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that they not act on the proposals (deny) at this time, and that the Planning Commission will consider them as part of the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Quarles pointed out that this is just a motion to deny the proposals and Mr. Florakis said he thinks that it is a mistake to put it through the Comprehensive Plan process if the Commission can narrow things down that would help the Arts District. Mr. Ballentine said he thinks the issues are so big, complex and intertwined that he would be amazed if the Commission was able to do it justice within a 30- or even a 60-day period. Mr. Quarles stated that he does not see that moving some uses from requiring a special use permit to uses by-right in buildings less than 10,000 square feet is so complex. He added that the parking issue is more complex and he agrees that a study could be done to give more information to act on. Chair Driscoll asked if the one or two or three businesses now, that logically want to put a few tables and chairs in, could submit applications for a special use permit, and Mr. Nester said they cannot because the special use permit would have to be specifically listed as something you could do. There was discussion about whether approving the revisions to the permitted uses/special use permit uses in the LB-2 District would be helpful without the change in parking requirements. Mr. Nester suggested that another action the Commission can consider is to table the proposals giving the EDA the opportunity to withdraw the request at this time. He added that at the upcoming Commission work session on Wednesday, May 23 the entire Midtown Planning Area will be discussed, including the Arts District and shopping centers. Mr. Ballentine seconded Mr. Kafes motion to deny both PCR # and PCR # at this time and consider them as part of the Comprehensive Plan process. The motion carried by roll call vote of 3-2. Recorded vote on the motion: Aye: Kafes, Driscoll, Ballentine Nay: Quarles, Florakis Absent: Connolly, Stafford OPEN FORUM Chairman Driscoll opened the Open Forum portion of the meeting encouraging comments from the audience on any topic. Tom Gillman thanked the Commission for their efforts in response to the letter from the EDA. He appreciates the comments today and realizes that a broad brush stroke has been used in the proposals. Although most in the room nodded their heads that Extraordinary Cupcakes is in a unique situation, he expressed his concern that the

16 Page 16 issue has not yet been resolved, and since the Commission has taken this action today, the Cupcake owners don t really have any options until the Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue. Mr. Gillman said that when you think about parking related to restaurants, it seems to him that the square footage that should count is the square footage that s available for patrons, where people can actually sit and have a meal, not the restaurant area and prep kitchen. Speaking as a private citizen, he suggested that this might be something that could be addressed as a temporary solution. Chair Driscoll suggested that maybe the EDA could work with the City and propose something that would address those specific issues. David Kranbuehl said he agrees and that is why he previously gave specific comments since we don t have a special use procedure for this specific problem where you might come in for 30 minutes to eat a cupcake as opposed to a restaurant where you spend 2½ hours; the situations are totally different. He said he is not so keen about having the same rule, which seems crazy to him, nor is he keen about having rigid rules. He suggested that we figure out a procedure that doesn t just have the same rule or fixed rules, but what allows for common sense. We ought to have a procedure where we can kind of bend things for the good of the community, for the businesses as well as the citizens. Chair Driscoll said he agrees and thinks there were too many issues and too broad a brush stoke for the issues. He encouraged the EDA to meet with the City and propose something for the June Commission meeting. Mr. Ballentine agreed adding that there are specific issues that we were trying to use a sledge hammer to take care of. Chair Driscoll responded that he is very receptive to the 2, 3, 4 or 5 instances were it seems to be logical. He said he thinks the concern of the Commission is that they don t want to open both barn doors without knowing what else will happen. There being no additional comment the Open Forum was closed. SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS Under Consent Agenda OLD BUSINESS -- None NEW BUSINESS -- None OTHER None INFORMATION ITEMS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION Report from City Council Planning Department Monthly Report Monthly Financial Statement

17 Page 17 There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Sean Driscoll, Chairman Williamsburg Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 20, None Scheduled Work Sessions Work Session on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. in the Williamsburg Municipal Building, 401 Lafayette Street, 3 rd Floor Conference Room. The topic will be the Midtown Planning Area. Work Session on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. in the Williamsburg Municipal Building, 401 Lafayette St., 3 rd Floor Conference Room. The topic will be the Downtown Planning Area. Work Session on Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. in the Williamsburg Municipal Building, 401 Lafayette St., 3 rd Floor Conference Room. The topic will be Institutions and Land Use Categories.