WILLIAMSBURG CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 14, 2012

Transcription

1 WILLIAMSBURG CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 14, 2012 The Williamsburg City Council held its regular monthly meeting on Thursday,, at 2:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Stryker Building, 412 N. Boundary Street, Williamsburg, Virginia. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Clyde A. Haulman called the meeting to order. ATTENDANCE Present in addition to Mayor Haulman were Vice-Mayor Paul T. Freiling, and Council members Ms. Judith N. Knudson, and Messrs. D. Scott Foster, Jr. and Douglas G. Pons. Also present were Assistant City Manager Jodi Miller, City Attorney Christina Shelton and Council Clerk Donna Scott. Staff Attending: Director of Economic Development Michele DeWitt, Communications Specialist Kate Hoving, Planning Director Reed Nester, Finance Director Phil Serra, Parks & Recreation Director Lori Rierson, Deputy Police Chief Andy Barker, Fire Chief Pat Dent, IT Director Mark Barham, Public Works & Utilities Director Dan Clayton and Director of Human Services Peter Walentisch. COUNCIL MINUTES Mr. Freiling moved that the minutes of the May 7 Work Session and the May 10, 2012 Regular Meeting be approved as submitted. Ms. Knudson seconded the motion which carried by roll call vote of 5-0. Aye: Knudson, Pons, Haulman, Freiling, Foster MATTERS OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE Dr. John T. Dever, President, Thomas Nelson Community College Al Louer, the City s representative on the Thomas Nelson Community College board, introduced Dr. John Dever who was chosen to be the 9 th President of the College in October Mr. Louer noted Dr. Dever s extensive educational background and leadership experience. Dr. Dever introduced several members of the TNCC staff who were present at the meeting. He presented an update on the two college campus locations that serve the Peninsula; one in Hampton and the other in Williamsburg. The mission of Thomas Nelson Community College is to prepare students for success in the global community and workforce of the future through the delivery of world-class comprehensive arts and sciences, transfer and occupational/technical programs, and workforce development. TNCC enhances the quality of life for citizens in its region by providing high quality, affordable and accessible post-secondary education.

2 Dr. Dever said transfer relationships with other colleges are very solid and he is particularly pleased with the relationship with the College of William and Mary which has progressed over the years to a genuine partnership. He said TNCC also works with all three Williamsburg- James City County high schools in a program to allow qualified high school students to earn college credit through dual enrollment opportunities while still juniors and seniors in high school. Last year 192 students from the three high schools were enrolled in the program. He added that he will be meeting with School Superintendent Constantino later this summer to discuss further partnership opportunities between the school system and TNCC. Another opportunity at TNCC is the Work Force Development program at the Discovery Center which began in 2009 and has served over 4,300 individuals. Among those taking advantage of the program have been Colonial Connections, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, the Greater Williamsburg Chamber and Tourism Alliance, Westgate Resorts, Williamsburg Area Transport, William and Mary Conference Services, the Williamsburg Hospitality House and others. One of the biggest utilizers of the Discovery Center is the City of Williamsburg s Human Services Department for their employment and job readiness programs. Other special programs they offer are the dental hygiene and certified nursing assistant programs. Dr. Dever said that regarding funding for the College, there are two primary sources: 70% from the General Assembly (the General Fund) and 30% from tuition and fees paid by students. Currently, this has flipped and is now 65% tuition and fees and 35% General Fund. He said the localities also play an important role in the funding. Long-standing agreement with the state was that the localities, not the state, would provide the funding to acquire, develop, maintain and improve the campus sites. These localities include the City of Williamsburg, Poquoson, Newport News, York County and James City County. He thanked the City of Williamsburg for their full support. Dr. Dever concluded his presentation by saying that he hopes the City finds the benefits well worth the investment. Mayor Haulman thanked Dr. Dever and TNCC staff members for their presence today and their efforts to improve higher education opportunities in our community. Council members expressed appreciation for the valuable asset TNCC provides to the community, noting the excellent programs offered. Ms. Knudson said that as Council s representative to the Work Force Development group, she sees that they have done wonderful work. Regarding the dental clinic, she noted that not only is it training people but the people in the program are offering direct care in the community. They do internships at Olde Towne Medical Center which is another wonderful partnership. She added that the need for dental care in this community is probably greater than the need for medical care, and thanked TNCC for providing the program. Mayor Haulman thanked Dr. Dever saying he looks forward to his periodic return with updates. Business Appreciation Award Mayor Haulman presented the Business Appreciation Award to Sam and Cabell Wallace representing the Williamsburg Merchants, Inc., the 2012 Award winner. He noted that the award was donated by Flemings Engraving and Awards. 2

3 Almost a century ago, in 1920, the Wallace family patriarch, Robert Wallace, founded his first business, The College Shop. Over the years many businesses were added to the Wallace family s ownership and in addition to his work in those businesses, Robert served in various capacities in the community from president of the Williamsburg City Council to a member of the board of directors at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. After Robert s death in 1962, his sons Sam, Jr. and Cabell took over, and in 1963 they founded The Christmas Shop in Merchants Square. In 1972 Sam Wallace founded Williamsburg Merchants, Inc. which included The College Shop (now the King s Treasure), The Christmas Shop, and Madison s. These businesses continue today with the assistance of many long-time dedicated employees and have been joined by The Williamsburg General Store, Haagen-Dazs and Wallace s Trading Post on Richmond Road. The Wallaces employ 35 full-time employees and employees during peak season. Mayor Haulman concluded the presentation by saying that for their commitment to the Williamsburg economy and also to the very fabric of this community, we salute the Wallaces and wish them 92 more years of success. Sam Wallace, Jr. said that they are very honored to receive the award and are proud to be a third generation business in Williamsburg. He said he would be remiss if he did not thank their staff. They have a lot of long-term employees; average tenure of the 35 full-time employees is between 18 and 22 years, so they have staff that has been with them for years. In 2000 they expanded their business and had a lot of options, some to move out of Williamsburg. However, they elected to stay and invest in Williamsburg which they have done by opening Wallace s Trading Post and The General Store. He thanked the community for the show of appreciation. {Audience applause} Bill Carr, member of the Williamsburg Economic Development Authority and Sponsor of Williamsburg Merchants, Inc. for the Award, came forward for a photograph with the 2012 Winners. PUBLIC HEARINGS City Lofts PCR #12-005: Request of 1406 LLC to Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Create the Planned Development Urban District PDU, Proposed Ordinance #12-09; and PCR #12-006: Request of 1406 LLC to Rezone 1406 Richmond Road from B-3 to PDU and to Approve the Development Plan for City Lofts, Proposed Ordinance #12-10 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, one-bedroom 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. 3

4 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 studentoriented 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 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 an 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. Although 143 parking spaces are required for the project, 146 are provided. 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. Mayor Haulman opened the Public Hearing. John Tarley, Jr., with Tarley Robinson Attorneys & Counselors at Law, said he represents the owners/applicants of 1406 LLC. owners Sandy & Elaine Garber and Nicolas & Demetrios Florakis. In addition to Mr. Nester s presentation, Mr. Tarley said a survey was done on campus regarding student housing and there were over 1,000 respondents. A slight majority said they would rather live off-campus, but close to campus. They would rather live in an apartment than a house in a single-family neighborhood and would rather live among their peers and share an apartment. Mr. Tarley stated that there are a number of reasons the existing property cannot survive; among these is the number of foreclosures, the over supply of hotels and the fact that the property is far below market value. It is an ambitious project with extensive renovations proposed, and the existing structure will not be torn down; it is a win-win proposition. 4

5 Mr. Tarley concluded his comments by saying that he would be remiss if he didn t point out the creativity of staff in creating the PDU District for this project that will bring premiere rentals for students. He respectfully asked Council for their approval. Terence Wehle, 412 Harriet Tubman Drive, said he applauds the ambitious nature of the project; it looks like a good project overall. He asked about security and what impact this would have on the City. In response to Mr. Wehle s question, Mr. Tarley said there will be a resident manager at the facility and each floor will have someone similar to the R.A. in the college system. There will be a person in the lobby for after-hour entry and security is clearly an issue that the owners take very seriously and that is set forth in the Management Plan that was submitted with the application. Mr. Foster stated that as a result of his summer employment with Tarley Robinson, PLC who is representing the applicant, he will abstain from discussion and vote on this project. Mr. Freiling said there is a lot to love with the proposed project. The location is good with access to William & Mary, access to public transportation, generous parking is provided that might help with summertime parking needs, good management plan, nice amenities and it is the type place that will draw students. It s important that people get behind this project and support it because the approximately 147 students who will be living there is ¾ of the growth of the College over the current four-year period. Adding this to Tribe Square and Fraternity Village will help take the pressure off single-family neighborhoods and provide real progress in the student housing inventory. Mr. Freiling said he would like to express his personal appreciation to the Florakis brothers. About eight years ago, they presented a project that wasn t approved, but that didn t detour them and they are retuning with what he thinks is an even better plan in an even better location. That kind of persistence, Mr. Freiling said, is admirable; they are doing a terrific job of reinvesting in this community. Mr. Pons agreed with Mr. Freiling s comments saying there isn t much more he can add. It is a smart project, it ties in with William & Mary and is proposed in an appropriate location. Ms. Knudson agreed that it is a wonderful project and it is sure to be a success because of the background of its owners. Mayor Haulman echoed Council comments adding that he is impressed with the Management Plan and that this project, like Tribe Square, will help take pressure off the single-family neighborhoods. Ms. Knudson moved that City Council approve Proposed Ordinance #12-09, creating the PDU District. Mr. Pons seconded the motion which carried by roll call vote of Recorded vote of motion: Yes: Freiling, Haulman, Knudson, Pons Abstain: Foster {Ordinance #12-09} 5

6 Mr. Freiling moved that City Council adopt Proposed Ordinance #12-10, rezoning 1406 Richmond Road from B-3 to PDU and approving the conceptual plans and conceptual architectural plans for the City Lofts development and approving the Management Plan for the student dwellings. Mr. Pons seconded the motion which carried by roll call vote of Aye: Knudson, Pons, Haulman, Freiling Abstain: Foster {Ordinance #12-10} Use and Parking Regulations in the Arts District PCR #12-007: Amend the LB-2 District, Proposed Ordinances #12-11A and #12-11B; and PCR #12-008: Create the Midtown Parking District, Proposed Ordinances #12-12A and #12-12B 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 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 (The Flakey Bakers) to have a small inside café area with table and chairs, they would be 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. 6

7 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 offstreet 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 the requirements for the proposed Midtown Parking District. He noted that Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 16 on the requests and eight citizens spoke at the hearing. Planning Commission, by a vote of 3-2, recommended to City Council that PCR # (Proposed Ordinance #12-11A) and PCR # (Proposed Ordinance #12-12A) be denied and considered further in the context of the Comprehensive Plan review process. Following the Planning Commission public hearing, staff developed an alternate proposal that incorporated suggestions made by citizens at the public hearing. Planning Department staff then discussed the alternate proposal with all of the citizens who spoke at the public hearing. A copy of the alternate proposal was also distributed to Planning Commission and City Council. The alternate proposal is summarized below and detailed in Proposed Ordinances #12-11B (LB-2 District) and #12-12B (Midtown Parking District). PCR #12-007: Revised LB-2 Use Regulations The maximum floor area for restaurants allowed by right is increased from 1,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet. Drive-thru windows are prohibited. Restaurants with more than 2,500 square feet floor area will require a special use permit approved by City Council. Drive-thru windows are prohibited. PCR #12-008: Revised Midtown Parking District Boundaries reduced to cover only the LB-2 District and the B-3 District area bounded by Bacon Avenue, Richmond Road and Lafayette Street. The Midtown Parking District would allow a parking reduction of up to 75% with approval of a special exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals. ٠ If a site plan is required, approval of the reduction is by Planning Commission. ٠ If a special use permit is required, approval of the reduction is by City Council. Criteria for approval would be: ٠ Accessibility of site to pedestrian and transit facilities. ٠ Availability of bicycle parking. ٠ Impact of parking reduction on adjoining commercial and residential uses. ٠ Availability of on-street parking in the immediate vicinity. ٠ Amount of traffic generated by the proposed use. Approval of the parking reduction is only for the specific business proposed. If the business changes, new approvals would be needed. 7

8 Options for City Council Action were presented: Deny Proposed Ordinances #12-11A and #12-12A. This denies the Original Proposal as recommended by Planning Commission. Approve Proposed Ordinances #12-11A and #12-12A. This approves the Original Proposal. Approve Proposed Ordinances #12-11B and #12-12B. This approves the alternate proposal based on citizen comments made at the Planning Commission public hearing. Approve a Modified Original or Alternate Proposal. This requires revising the text of the Proposed Ordinances. Mr. Freiling noted that this is not about just one particular business, rather about the commercial area of the Arts District. However, using Extraordinary Cupcakes as the example, and trying to understand the scope of what we are talking about, he asked for the square footage of Extraordinary Cupcakes; Ms. DeWitt answered it is between 1100 and 1300 square feet. Mr. Nester confirmed that under the current regulations for a restaurant of 1 parking space for every 100 square feet, they would require 11 parking spaces in order to have a table and chairs. He added that according to the current guidelines, if there is food, drink and seating provided, a business is considered a restaurant. Regarding the LB-2 comparison, and in response to Mayor Haulman s question, Mr. Nester said under current regulations drive-thru windows are allowed. In the Original Proposal, drivethru windows are allowed with a special use permit. The Alternate Proposal prohibits drivethru windows. In response to Mr. Pons request for clarification on the parking proposals, Mr. Nester said the ability to obtain, from the BZA, PC or CC depending on the circumstances, a reduction in the parking requirement of up to 75%, was calculated by using the difference between the office parking requirement of 1 parking space for every 400 square feet and the requirement for restaurants of 1 for every 100 square feet (75%). The 75% was picked to allow the flexibility to go from an office to a restaurant without having to provide additional parking if the BZA, PC or CC felt it necessary. Mr. Nester confirmed that approval for a parking reduction would be for that specific business and would not convey. Mayor Haulman opened the Public Hearing. Nancy Canning, 209 Nelson Avenue, said she is within five minutes walking distance of the area that would be directly impacted by the original two Planning Department proposals and by the revised proposals being considered today. Ms. Canning asked for clarification in terms of the procedure. She said that according the to the Public Notice in the Virginia Gazette, this hearing is to discuss PCR # and PCR #12-008, both of which are the original proposals. Subsequent to the Notice there was personal conversation in the Municipal Building at which time she was given the Alternate Proposal. She asked if Council is going to be voting on the Original Proposals and if so, comments regarding the Alternate Proposal wouldn t be relevant until after that vote. City Attorney Shelton explained that once Council has a recommendation from the Planning Commission, they can consider that Original Proposal and make changes as they deem appropriate or they can consider the Alternate Proposal from the Planning Department staff which incorporates changes addressing 8

9 concerns that were expressed during the Planning Commission s discussion of the matter. She confirmed that someone speaking at the public forum could address the Original or the Alternate Proposals or any other proposal since Council has the ability to make whatever changes it deems necessary. In response to Mr. Freiling s question, Ms. Shelton said Council can discuss the Original Proposal because that is what went through the public hearing process at the Planning Commission meeting. Also, the Alternate Proposal can be discussed because it is a less intensive change than the Original Proposal. What Council cannot do without going back through Planning Commission, is add new components that are more intensive to the Original Proposal or make it more broad or sweeping in its application. Council will be considering both the Original and the Alternate Proposals. In response to Ms. Canning s question, Mayor Haulman said Council has read the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting when this was discussed and many of the issues in the Original Proposal were brought up with staff and speakers. Although Ms. Canning is free to review her points made at the Planning Commission meeting, Mayor Haulman said she could feel comfortable that Council has heard the arguments and have received Ms. Canning s five-page letter on the subject as well. That being the case, Ms. Canning said she will bypass repeating previously made comments. Ms. Canning said that since the May 16 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Department has offered two proposals: Comparison of Proposals Amendments to the LB-2 District Original Proposal Ten or fewer multifamily dwellings allowed by right 14 units/net acre allowed by right No floor area limitation for retail use No floor area limitation for restaurant use No room limitation for hotel use Buildings larger than 10,000 square feet require special use permit Alternate Proposal All multifamily dwellings require a special use permit 14 units/net acre requires a special use permit 5,000 square feet floor area limitation for retail use, special use permit for more floor area 2,500 square feet limitation for restaurant use, special use permit for more floor area Ten room limit for hotel use, special use permit required for more rooms Buildings larger than 10,000 square feet require special use permit Comparison of Proposals Creation of Midtown Parking District Original Proposal Eliminate 0.25 visitor parking space per multifamily unit Furniture/hardware store = One space for every 400 square feet required Art gallery/museum = One space for every 400 square feet required Office = One space for every 400 square feet required Retail = One space for every 400 square feet required Restaurant = One space for every 400 square feet required Alternate Proposal Require 0.25 visitor parking space per multifamily unit Furniture/hardware store = One space for every 500 square feet required 9

10 Art gallery/museum = One space for every 400 square feet required Office = One space for every 400 square feet required Retail = One space for every 200 square feet required Restaurant = One space for every 100 square feet required Parking reduction of up to 75% can be granted by BZA - Approval by Planning Commission if a site plan is required - Approval by City Council if a special use permit is required Ms. Canning said she has no objections to the Alternate Proposals for the following reasons: 1. The proposed increase in restaurant by right square footage places a specific square footage limitation on the by-right increase. 2. An applicant for parking requirement reduction would have to demonstrate availability of parking and potential impact on the adjoining commercial and residential areas. 3. The proposed parking changes would apply only to the existing LB-2 and B-3 areas, not to any residentially zoned area. 4. Permission for parking requirement reduction would be considered on a case-by-case basis applicable to only one specific business at a time and in response to specific needs. Mayor Haulman thanked Ms. Canning for her comments today and for her comments made at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the Original Proposal, as well as her letter to Council. Victor Smith, with residences in Counselors Close and Chandler Court, stated that he supports Ms. Canning s comments. The Planning Commission was wise in recommending denial of the Original Proposal. Henry Coleman, 606 College Terrace, said he is very pleased that the Planning Commission listened to public comment and has provided an Alternate Proposal, which he completely supports. Mr. Coleman said he has one question and that is about, for example, the potential for Suter s to be turned into a restaurant. The amount of parking places required are more than it would be able to provide, unlike the Trellis, the Blue Talon and other restaurants in Merchant s Square that have not only the parking square area, but also the parking garage. Suter s is directly adjacent to a residential area; where are the cars going to park? He commented that maybe the old Tioga Motel site could be purchased and used as an off-site parking lot. Mr. Coleman concluded his comments by saying the Alternate Proposal has much to offer, however, we may need to discuss some of the uses for the spaces on Richmond Road on a case-by-case basis. Bob Singley, RJS & Associates, said his office is located across the street at Lafayette and Boundary Streets. He said Suter s has gotten a lot of attention in these discussions and for full disclosure, his firm represents the family that owns that property which RJS is marketing. Mr. Singley said he applauds the planning staff for their efforts to draft two ordinances that would create flexibility that would not only benefit Suter s, but also the entire Arts District. Mr. Singley said he supports the Alternate Proposal for the LB-2 District amendments. He said he differs with the other speakers regarding the Parking District because he thinks the 10

11 Alternate Proposal is still too restrictive and doesn t give the flexibility for other uses in that area; it should also be inclusive of the geographic area of the RS-2 District in the Arts District. He said his issue is that the Williamsburg Shopping Center has the flexibility with one space for every 300 square feet for different uses, whether it s restaurant, retail, offices, etc. He suggested the entire District be treated as one in trying to promote the redevelopment of the area. His other issue is in regard to the Suter s property in particular and the requirement for more parking spaces if it were to be converted into a retail type business. Because there would be a risk of being denied approval for the reduction in the parking requirement, the potential purchaser of the property may be denied when applying for a bank loan. For this reason, Mr. Singley asked that the Original Proposal that the Planning Commission recommended be denied, be reconsidered. Monty Mason, 12 Bayberry Lane, Chair of the Williamsburg Economic Development Authority, said he was present to discuss what the Authority s thoughts were when they sent the letter to the Planning Commission asking for review of the parking and use requirements in the Arts District. Mr. Mason said that proposal PCR # was not in the letter written to the Planning Commission; those things are squarely in the purview of the Planning Department staff and the Planning Commission; the EDA letter and request did not address those things. The letter and request did address parking for the very reason of consistency. Multiple prospects have been turned away because of the limits placed on a building due to parking requirements. He said that Business A could get approval, and although the same type business, Business B would have to go through the permit process since the approval would not convey; this is very difficult to explain to a business person. Mr. Mason said he applauds all speakers who have come forward and who speak when they see something of concern to them. Mr. Mason said the Alternate Proposal lacks the consistency that the EDA asked for; the consistent application across all areas which was the initial request from the EDA. He read from Planning Department staff s memorandum regarding the creation of a Midtown Parking District that encapsulates the views of the EDA, and his views in particular: This change would allow great 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. Mr. Mason said in his estimation, the following sentence hits the nail on the head: It would allow the prime determinant of business uses to be market demand rather than off-street parking requirements. And it would provide additional flexibility for constructing new buildings in the area. He said he appreciates all the work the Planning Commission has done as well as citizen involvement. Regarding PCR #12-008, Mr. Mason asked Council to reconsider the Original Proposal. 11

12 David Kranbuehl, 201 Harrison Avenue, said the discussion has been very helpful and he appreciates Mr. Mason s comments. We are probably all on the same page and want to see a vibrant community with businesses we like to go to being successful Regarding the Use Regulations in the Arts District, Mr. Kranbuehl said he agrees that the private sector has done an enormous job in providing living space for students, and the College is making progress. He said we need to remember that this happened because we have a special use process, and when we are dealing with the transition area from Brooks Street to the Shopping Center, the special use permit process is how we get the quality that we want. Regarding parking, Mr. Kranbuehl pointed out that the street in this small section of our town is adjacent to some very important neighborhoods, Matoaka Court, College Terrace, i.e. Brooks Street, and many small streets between Lafayette Street and Richmond Road as well as Nelson and Harrison Avenue. What we all need to do is get people living here 12 months out of the year, owning or renting, but a mix from students to recent college graduates and from young to older people. One important thing that we re not doing too well is putting in incentives so that the stability of these neighborhoods not only remains, but grows. At the Planning Commission work session yesterday, the common sense solution was presented and that was to say we are not going to put down a specific density, but rather have someone propose what they would like to do and then see whether it makes sense. He said he agrees with Mr. Mason about having everything uniform, but we still need to have a process whereby we don t accept a business just because we are desperate for business. We are not desperate for business; we are desperate for the right business. The right business would be one that enhances but does not distract from the neighborhood it backs up to; this is critical and in order to get the right business we have to have the opportunity to review proposals. Dennis Kiser, 123 Matoaka Court, member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, said that in reference to the Alternative Proposal, what he would suggest is if Council is going to send something to the BZA, they provide guidelines of what is wanted and expected in reference to the issue, otherwise, the Board may come up with some unreasonable time restriction or something that would kill the deal and prevent the bank from financing the project. Terence Wehle, 412 Harriet Tubman, said what really concerned him about the process was what was proposed by the Planning Department in the original, Original Proposal -- to do away with the special use permits in this area, including the 10,000 square foot restriction. If citizens hadn t shown up, it s likely that this would have been approved. What is a special use permit for? Mr. Wehle read the statement of intent that stated higher intensity uses, in this case a mixed land use area, may be allowed with a special use permit to ensure that the use is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. He asked what happened to that; why did the Planning Department recommend that we do away with the special use permits. He said he would like to get some balance in this and applauds the EDA and the Planning Department, but thinks their focus is economic and there is another focus which has to do with neighborhoods and character. 12

13 Mr. Wehle recommended that we have a similar authority, perhaps a Character Preservation Authority or a Neighborhood Preservation Authority which would act in an advisory role to Planning and Council; if we had had that type committee, we might have had the Alternate Proposal come through initially. Mr. Wehle said he would also like to point out that it is put out from an economic point of view that if we make these changes we ll create a lot of business, but there is currently a lot of business locations vacant including several in the Triangle Building and other locations in the City. He said that while we are relaxing rules in this area, are we being fair to these other places that are needing business as well. We all love Williamsburg, but need some balance in the discussion. One of the many things the Planning Commission has done right is to recommend that the issue be tabled and use the ongoing Comprehensive Plan process to all the very complicated issues. In conclusion, Mr. Wehle said regarding the Arts District, on the website it said the City might look at whether loosening the zoning or ARB regulations would assist the District. Any proposed changes would need to be balanced with the high quality aesthetic and reputation that Williamsburg enjoys as well as the charm of this area of the City. Mr. Wehle asked if we are doing that. He continued reading from the website, if it even looks like changes are needed, the City would rely on feedback from property owners and their tenants and prospects as part of considering this in identifying any need for it. He said that this process was somewhat rushed and he does not know if the people and tenants were asked for their opinions. He added that he would like us to remember that the Williamsburg Shopping Center has a number of businesses, retail and restaurants and that is why the parking is one space per 300 square feet. It is not the same as having a restaurant and saying that it is somehow balanced; because there are many different kinds of businesses, it balances out. Henry Coleman, 606 College Terrace, said a special use permit is just what it says. If a bank is halfway intelligent, before locking down a loan you would see if the proposed business was able to do what it wants to do in the space they are proposing, and whether that means a special use permit is necessary. That does not mean impossibility, but it does mean you have to do your homework. If a special use permit is needed and the bank is willing to loan money for the project before that process is completed, that is not our responsibility. Bob Singley stated that he thinks Mr. Coleman was addressing a point that he evidently didn t make very well in his previous comments. The point that he was trying to make was that a bank does do its homework, they lend the money to the person who is buying the building and putting the retail shop there, however, you have to look at the downside which is that if that person does not make his payment, he is not successful, and therefore the bank has the first deed of trust on the property and institutes foreclosure proceedings. Now the bank has the property back but they can t use the more intense use of retail use because they will need to go back to the BZA or go through the special use permit process in order to get adequate parking to be used for retail purpose. David Kranbuehl said we all want Suter s to be sold and be successful, but we shouldn t be establishing zoning based on Suter s size and where it s going. He said he would be in favor of a special vote that Suter s is allowed to go retail and the parking will be whatever, but that should be separate from how we vote on these two decisions. We must not make our plans 13

14 based on a single property. There being no additional comment the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Freiling said that regarding the LB-2 amendments, the Alternate Ordinance is the one he would support, and not the Original Ordinance. Regarding the parking issue, he sees clearly what both sides are saying. He said he also knows that the whole issue came from the EDA asking for a more consistent approach to parking challenges in the area, and he can appreciate the uncertainty of whether a proposal would go through the BZA, the Planning Commission or the City Council. That unknown can create problems for potential businesses making a decision to invest in and locate in the community. He also understands the concerns of the residents and how they don t want their neighborhoods overwhelmed by parking from these businesses or their quality of life compromised by additional traffic and parking on the streets. Mr. Freiling noted that what we are primarily talking about is restaurant parking and if the floor area in a restaurant is larger than 2,500 square feet a special use permit is required. He asked if the 2,500 square feet limitation can be granted by right, can the parking at one for 400 go with that by right use up to 2,500 square feet. There may be a middle ground. If the 2,500 limitation can be granted by right, can the parking at one per 400 go with that by right use and if a restaurant comes in at greater than 2,500 square feet and will be going through the special use permit process anyway, is there a way to consider the parking in that larger restaurant as part of the special use permit and not grant by right the one per 400. Mr. Nester responded that there are several ways this could be addressed, two of which are: If you move away from uniform parking requirements, you could have requirements for small restaurants different from those required for a larger restaurant. If a special use permit is needed for a restaurant larger than 2,500 square feet, the process says that Council can impose reasonable standards as deemed necessary to protect the public interest and welfare and such standards may include additional offstreet parking or loading requirements. Regarding the parking issue, Mr. Foster said he is comfortable with the Original Proposal and he is fine with certain points on the Alternate Proposal for the LB-2 Amendments. About Mr. Singley s point about a special use permit running with the property, if you are applying for a special use permit and the Planning Commission and City Council understand that the use runs with the property, that is adequate consideration for that benefit. In response to Mayor Haulman s question, City Attorney Shelton said it is possible to have the permit run with the property rather than with the particular business, but she would suggest that the property owner should be the one petitioning for it rather than the business owner. Mr. Foster said that in the time he s been on Council this stretch of Richmond Road has been like an itch you cannot scratch, and the Arts District is the first hint of cohesive identity. One of the tools we have is creating value in that area and there is extreme value in the certainty that something can be done at a certain location; maybe is a pretty scary word when there is a lot of money on the line. A three-month permitting process can cost $10,000 to $15,000 in engineer and attorney fees and is a significant deterrent. We need to be particularly mindful of those impediments, especially in an area that is looking to catch on as this one is. 14

15 Mr. Foster said he is fine with almost everything on the amendments to the LB-2 District except for the 2,500 square foot limitation on the restaurant. Since we went from no floor limitation for restaurant use, we ought to at least make it consistent with retail which will add certainty for the future of a building if it does go through some process. Mr. Pons thanked everyone for coming; there has been a lot of good discussion. He said that as one who voted against the Arts District, this conversation reminds him of some of the conversation that he pointed out then that we would have, and that is a negative impact on the neighborhood. But, with that said, the District is here and there is good merit to it; we need to do what we can to make it successful. Because the District and the parking have carved out the residential portion, the Alternate Proposal makes better sense to him even though he still thinks there are consequences from over-flow parking. Mr. Pons said he is comfortable with putting back all the special use permits in the Alternate Proposal and willing to hear more about Councilman Foster s thoughts about square foot limitations on restaurant space. Regarding parking, he likes the Alternate Proposal but, like Mr. Singley pointed out, there is a challenge if the bank doesn t have security with what to do with that real estate and that building beyond the first applicant. There has to be some compromise and we need to be flexible to make this happen. He added that this is not the answer that will solve the challenge of the Arts District. Once the college year is over, there are very few cars that traverse that area of Richmond Road; traffic is very dependent on student and faculty so there is a need to bring more traffic into the area when school is out. Once you have more traffic in the area to support the businesses, then there is that impact that we need to be mindful of; he said he is still up in the air about how to handle it. Ms. Knudson said the first thing she wants to do is thank the staff. This has turned into an enormous amount of work and staff has done an outstanding job. Ms. Knudson said she can support the Alternate Proposal for the LB-2 amendments, and agrees with Councilman Foster that the restaurant space should equal the retail space. Regarding the parking issue, one of the speakers mentioned that this area needs revitalization; that is what we wanted to do and exactly why we passed the Arts District. We all know there are problems there and we are working on it. The EDA sent a proposal that would help the Arts District and we need to support the EDA and support the Original Parking Proposal because it does what we want it to do. Ms. Knudson agreed with Councilman Pons that we need more traffic in the area to support the businesses. Mayor Haulman summarized the issues. The first is the LB-2 District and Council consensus seems to be that the Alternate Proposal is favored. There is a question of whether the restaurant floor area limitation should be 5,000 square feet like the retail use, or 2,500 square feet with a special use permit required for more floor area. On the parking issue, Mayor Haulman said Council consensus seems to be that the new map where the parking district boundary does not include the RS-3 residential area, is preferred over the old map and the Original Proposal, although there has been some interest in the Alternate Proposal. Mayor Haulman noted that Mr. Freiling s question clarified the issue a lot for him, and if we support the Parking Original Proposal, but the Alternate Proposal on the LB-2 changes, the LB-2 requirement would require a special use permit process and that process could address 15

16 parking. In response to Mr. Freiling s request for clarification, Ms. DeWitt said the multifamily parking element was not included in the EDA s request. Council consensus was to remove mention of the multifamily parking space from the proposals. Ms. Knudson pointed out that basically, this would really help the smaller businesses that would like to offer food service, which is, along with dependence of foot traffic, the vision for that area. Mr. Foster noted that the fact that it is a walking type district decreases the need for additional parking, especially in the ten to fifteen year vision of people walking from downtown to the Arts District in what will hopefully become one contiguous corridor. Mr. Foster added that the reason he suggested going to 5,000 is because we have existing infrastructure that could be lumped in there; it s easier to market if it is consistent. Mr. Freiling noted that nothing that was in the LB-2 Proposal was included in the request from the EDA. Economic Development Director DeWitt added that the EDA discussed this yesterday at their regularly scheduled meeting and they do feel that the 1,000 square foot limitation on restaurant floor area kicking in the special use permit process, needs to be raised. Mayor Haulman pointed out that the Alternate Proposal does this; the question is whether the 2,500 is high enough. In response to Mr. Foster s request, Ms. DeWitt explained that from an economic development viewpoint, the EDA would want the LB-2 District Original Proposal because they want the least amount of regulation to work with their businesses. She added that the initial letter from EDA Chair Mason did not go this broad. The issue they typically find with a prospect for the Arts District is that they are a very small business, often a start-up business, which is what we had imagined would happen. She agreed with an earlier comment about the amount of retail space in the greater Richmond area, so they find themselves competing with other localities or other locations who allow these uses by right. With the uncertainty of bank funding tied with the special use permit process, Ms. DeWitt said she often gets no further than the first conversation with prospects. Mr. Pons stated that he is now almost okay with the 2,500 square feet. If we are talking about smaller, quainter atmosphere, there are very few spaces that are over 2,500 square feet in that district unless it would be a total redevelopment of something. Consensus of the Council was that the 2,500 square feet was acceptable; although Mr. Foster said he is comfortable with the 2,500, he again noted his opinion. Ms. Knudson moved that City Council approve Proposed Ordinance #12-11B which approves the Alternate Proposal based on citizen comments made at the Planning Commission public hearing. Mr. Freiling seconded the motion which carried by roll call vote of 5-0. Mr. Freiling moved that City Council approve Proposed Ordinance #12-12A, the Original Ordinance, with the new map where the parking district boundary does not include the RS-3 residential area and elimination of the reference to parking in multifamily units. The approved modified ordinance and map will be numbered Ordinance #12-12C. Ms. Knudson seconded the motion which carried by roll call vote of 5-0. Recorded vote of motions: Yes: Freiling, Haulman, Knudson, Foster, Pons {Ordinances: #12-11B and #12-12C} 16