Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Live Work PD18 13R1 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission declines developer’s request to relax live‑work requirement for downtown PD
Summary
The commission rejected a proposal to amend PD18‑13 for 101 S. Center St. that would have allowed 23 ground‑floor live‑work units to be used as residential or home‑office space, citing security, vacancy and enforceability concerns; motion failed and the applicant was urged to pursue council review.
The Arlington Planning and Zoning Commission voted down a request to amend PD18‑13 (downtown mixed‑use) that would have reduced the guaranteed nonresidential component of a downtown project.
Staff told the commission the applicant seeks to remove the requirement that 23 ground‑floor units be leased as live‑work (nonresidential) space, instead allowing those units to be used as residential, live‑work or home office; that change would lower the project's assured nonresidential share from about 15% to roughly 10% unless the units are leased as nonresidential.
Harris Rutherford of Catalyst Urban Development, the project owner, said the live‑work designation and associated building code/CO and insurance requirements have made leasing those ground‑floor units difficult. He described repeated break‑ins and vagrant activity that, he said, have resulted in $150,000 in security and repair costs and left 18 of the 23 units vacant. Rutherford argued allowing residential or home‑office occupancy would reduce vacancy, increase ‘‘eyes on the street’’ and make the project safer and more viable.
Commissioners and staff clarified the difference between 'live work' and 'home‑based business': live‑work counts as nonresidential in a mixed‑use building and requires a certificate of occupancy and building‑code compliance, while home‑based business is a residential permit and does not count as nonresidential for density purposes.
Some commissioners sympathized with the vacancy and security problems but expressed concern that approving the amendment would permanently reduce the city's long‑term nonresidential commitment downtown and would be difficult to reverse. Commissioner Blake moved to approve PD18‑13R1 with additional security improvements; Commissioner Sumter seconded. The motion failed. The transcript records the outcome as: 'Motion fails 8 7 to 1 with 1 absence' (phraseology in the transcript is ambiguous). The chair encouraged the applicant to pursue city council review or negotiate additional measures with staff.
The commission did not adopt the proposed amendment; staff and applicant were left to pursue follow‑up options.
