Planners OK Permit For Office Use
Concerns over institutional creep were raised yet again to the Lexington Planning Commission at its regular meeting last week as the Commission considered another conditional use permit application by John Adamson.
The permit would allow Washington and Lee University to operate a copy center in the lower level of the Grand’s building at 1 S. Main St., as well as potential use by university administrative offices of the rear portion of the upper floor of the building.
The Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the permit application. It will go to City Council at its March 20 meeting.
Adamson applied for a similar conditional use permit for the Rockbridge Building last fall, which was also approved.
Unlike with the Rockbridge Building, where Adamson already had a commitment from W&L to utilize the upper floor of the building for administrative offices, no such commitment currently exists for the portions of the upper floor of the Grand’s building in question.
Adamson explained that he was applying for the use to have the option for the use as he renovated the space. He also said that he plans to renovate the building’s interior to divide the lover level into three retail spaces, two of which will front onto Main Street and one which will front onto Washington Street. The city’s Architecture Review Board will consider Adamson’s proposed changes to the façade of the building at its meeting on Thursday. -Several city residents and business owners addressed the Commission to express their opposition to the conditional use permit, citing a variety of concerns from institutional creep to increased rents for businesses to the impact that adding additional offices would have on parking.
“Space that is inside for administrative use has a much higher concentration of people working in it than retail space,” said Donna Shick, who lives at 3 Sheridan Row. “That’s going to be a lot more people competing for parking downtown. … I think this does negatively impact downtown. I think it negatively impacts the businesses. I’ve spoken to many of my friends who live out of town and they tell me that, when they come to town, if they cannot conveniently find parking, they just keep going, and businesses are losing business.
“I think we have to start looking at things that impact our businesses, and people being able to come into town and park does,” she added.
Michael Perry of 309 S. Jefferson St. said that potentially adding more university administrative offices “is counterproductive to economic development” in the city. “We could have businesses in those offices that generate sales taxes, business taxes [and] bring people to town for various reasons rather than administrators of a university that has a large building right across the street from the Grand’s building [and] has plenty of space on their campus,” he said. “The only reason why they want to have offices downtown is because it is cheaper to renovate and rent a building downtown than build a new building on their campus. It is one of the largest endowed small universities in the United States. It has billions of dollars in endowments. It certainly can afford to have offices on their campus without coming in and taking space away from economic development in downtown.”
Loss of potential retail space in the upper floor was a point raised by several people who spoke. Jessica Dugan, who runs Dugan Psychotherapy located at 18 W. Washington St. – just next to the portion of the building where Adamson is proposing adding a store front – asked for small businesses to be given a chance to see if they can afford rents in the new space.
“My request as someone who works here, is give us a chance to say, ‘No, we won’t pay that rent,’” she said. “As someone who lives here, my sense of the community is, ‘What is the plan here?’ I hear words of the comprehensive plan, but I don’t feel it in the community. It doesn’t feel like people know where we’re going. … Do I want you to preserve buildings? Yes. Do I want you to add retail space? Yes. Do I necessarily want that back space to be W&L? No. So I guess I’m sorta kinda against it, and I hope that there would be more opportunities for people like me to have good space downtown” “You’ve only got so much space in downtown Lexington. It’s finite, and so as you use up every square foot, that’s less for locals to use. And they have a ton of land if you go west on Rt. 60. They could build there,” added Tina Miller, who owns Walkabout Outfitters on South Main Street. “What about all the businesses – the engineers, the counseling services – the other businesses that would be attracting people to come downtown that can no longer be there?”
“I think we all appreciate what’s been done by people like Mr. Adamson who come in and renovate these buildings,” said Nancy Wolf, who resides on Jefferson Street. “Without their help, this town would be in trouble. But we also are desperate for housing and we also cannot afford to lose retail [spaces].”
Patrick Rhamey of 110 White St. argued that the conditional use permit violated the city’s comprehensive plan’s directive that the university should be “encouraged to stay with their institutional boundaries to preclude additional loss of business and industry.”
There were some comments in favor of the conditional use permit. John Hughes, whose family operates a business downtown, encouraged the Commission to approve the permit and praised Adamson for his efforts to refurbish the building.
“Thoughtful and sensitive rehabilitation of our historic building is critical to preserving Lexington’s character while ensuring that downtown remains a thriving, functional and safe space for business and residents,” he said. “I understand concerns about Washington and Lee leasing space or one group taking the lead in these restorations, but what is the alternative – more absentee landlords who let buildings decay until they become unsafe and unusable? We already see what’s happening when owners neglect their properties. It hurts all of us. We should be encouraging responsible investment that protects our historic structures while making them functional for modern needs.” -During the Commission’s discussion, Mary Stuart Harlow, who cast the dissenting vote, also cited the comprehensive plan as her objection to the permit.
“I have to weigh in on the side of the comprehensive plan being very well thought-out and very well crafted,” she said. “There’s a reason that was done, and I think it’s an affront to the people who spent all the time crafting that if we totally throw it out the window. We are charged with maintaining a separation between the business zone and institution educational zone. We’re charged with that, so I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to disregard that.”
Krista Anderson pointed out that the comprehensive plan specifically encourages the university to “program new construction within present university bounds” to reduce a loss of property tax revenue to the city.
Leslie Straughan noted that even offices in this space could have a positive impact on businesses in the city.
“Having people in offices downtown, that’s what gets all these businesses through the slow times,” she said. “I don’t think that gets acknowledged enough, having that kind of foot-traffic and just having people downtown. It’s not just our tourists who make up our shoppers downtown. It’s the residents and people who live and work here.”
Tori Bates commented that she would have preferred that the upper levels of both the Grand’s and Rockbridge buildings be used as residential space and not offices.
“I think so many people in Lexington feel this way,” she said. “I don’t know why that wasn’t an option, but this is where we are. Residents living in these buildings would be in the fabric of the community. They would be immersed in the community.”
Straughan made the motion to approve the conditional use permit with an added condition that the entire property must stay on the city’s tax rolls for the use to be applicable. Newly appointed Commission member Charlie Hall provided the second.
Prior to the discussion and vote, Straughan disclosed that she had a conflict of interest on this issue since her husband works for the university, but said she did not have to recuse herself because the city and the university weren’t the only parties to potentially benefit from this business. During his comments, Perry objected to her not recusing herself.
“She has direct influence and direct connection to W&L and she should recuse herself from any matters concerning W&L,” he said.
After the vote, Commission Chair Shannon Spencer thanked the residents who attended the meeting and addressed the Planning Commission.
“Your care and concern for our community is noted, and I think members of our commission are right there with you,” she said. “I really encourage you to show up at council meetings, to write letters to the editor [and] to get involved. This community is very near and dear to every one of us.”
