The Observer Newspapers |Downtown Development Process Must be Strengthened

August 8 , 2008

Downtown Development Process Must be Strengthened

Diamond Properties has proposed to build a 163-room, four- to five-story hotel at the northwest corner of Elden and Monroe streets. The proposed hotel will be more than 45 feet tall on the Monroe Street frontage. Due to a relatively steep slope at the site, the back of the hotel will be about 65 feet tall from Station Street level. Under the current zoning, an owner can build essentially a one-story building.

However, a developer can be permitted to build up to five stories if its design meets the goals of the comprehensive plan and the Heritage Preservation handbook. The central question in the current debate can be framed as: "To what extent does the proposed hotel meet the stated goals about whether the developer should be permitted to build three, four or five stories?"

On one side of the debate are those who fear that if this proposal is not approved then no other developer will offer another proposal for the foreseeable future. The town will lose potential tax revenue, critics say, and the current "blight"(represented by the empty lot, the car repair place and another small building) would remain in place for many years to come. For them anything is better than what is there now.

This side of the debate also consists of downtown business and property owners who have been starved for adequate patronage and hurt by low property values for a long time. They believe that the proposed project has the potential to greatly increase values of their properties and otherwise increase their revenues. The supporters of this side of the debate, constituting a small group of people in town, want to move forward without much debate, if any and approve the project as is.

The opposing side, represented so far by the Historic Preservation Board, and perhaps the silent majority, does not want to approve the project as is because it does not meet the intent and spirit of the Heritage Preservation Guidelines. Supporters of this side of the debate would like to reduce the height of the building and reduce the effect of the mass, and are afraid that the approval of the project will lead to the development of tall buildings and the often expressed vision for the downtown will go by the wayside due to weight of the economic interests. These arguments may have considerable merit.

Diamond Properties has asserted that the reduction in the number of rooms (or floors) will make this project not economically viable. However, it has presented no data to support its assertion. The town staff has also not conducted any analysis or developed a framework for assessing the economic viability of the project in some manner. Therefore, the town cannot say whether a three- or four-story hotel (or alternatively, whether 90 or 130 rooms rather than the proposed 163 rooms) would be economically viable. The developer will use the threat of economic feasibility to extract what he wants from the town unless the Town conducts its own analysis.

To me, the town has a rather narrow interest in determining the economic viability. It must determine whether the site is economically viable (if a smaller project is approved) and whether the entire project is viable. Based on the analysis I conducted with the help of a hotel builder, I find that the site will remain economically viable for a smaller, 120-room hotel.

Given the fact that only a small number of people participate in the town's affairs, we face one main question for the long run: How do we make decisions that are consistent with our vision and goals for the downtown?

Under Section 78-303.2(9)f of the zoning regulations, Site and building design shall comply with the guidelines in the Handbook as determined by the HPRB prior to the planning commission public hearing when the increased floor area ratio is considered.

In this case, floor area ratio is slated to increase from 0.5 to 2.23. Therefore, the clause above is clearly applicable. The HPRB unanimously rejected the initial application in April citing non-compliance with the guidelines, which require that "Design shall be architecturally compatible with the historic landmarks, buildings, and structures in the Preservation District in terms of size, scale, color, material and character."

Rather than making necessary changes and receiving HPRB's approval, the developer made small changes to the proposal and submitted it to Planning Commission for its technical review. In my view, the commission should not have accepted the application and it should not do so in future cases. I am confident that the HPRB can develop procedures and rules of thumb to make architectural and preservation trade-offs necessary to approve or reject future projects. If the developers know that they cannot run around the HPRB, they will submit applications that substantially comply with the HPRB guidelines in the first place.

The commission's review, in this case, turned out to be anything but technical. In the face of substantial public support for the project from downtown property owners, past town officials and about 30 community activists, even some of the commission members who had significant reservations about the project decided to support it. The decision-making process thus became political. The commission voted unanimously to approve the project, but many zoning and planning issues remain largely un-discussed and unresolved.

Political decisions, at the Planning Commission level, have many undesirable effects. They provide little or no guidance for future downtown development actions. They encourage some people, including developers and property owners, to shortcut the process for personal gain, undercut professionalism and limit public debate.

The HPRB members, for instance, were quite aware of the unanimous approval by the commission when the application was submitted again to them and felt intimidated by it. In the resulting report to the Council, the HPRB decided to move the project forward "as long as the proffers do not prohibit the HPRB from achieving adjustments to building design if and when a future application for a Certificate of Appropriateness is presented." The HPRB believes that it has, thus, reserved the option of reviewing and reducing the size and scale of the project at a later date. However, even if it were legally empowered to do so, it would be almost impossible for it to reduce the height of the building if the Town Council has already approved the project in its current form.

Many downtown properties will inevitably come up for development in the near future. Only by enhancing the current decision-making process can we hope to develop a mechanism for deciding the extent to which future projects meet the stated goals for development and whether the developers should be awarded the full or partial benefit of greater density.

Jasbinder Singh

Mr. Singh was a candidate for mayor in the last town election. He has conducted public policy and economic analysis for the last 35 years. His firm has operated from Herndon for the last 17 years, and he has lived in Herndon since 2001.