Gecker on the Watkins Centre: Proactive Zoning Will Help Chesterfield in the Long Run Monday, January 30, 2006
Posted by Conaway B. Haskins III in Uncategorized.trackback
Guest Writer
In a South of the James exclusive, Dan Gecker, Vice Chairman of the Chesterfield County Planning Commission, responds to the on-going controversy surrounding the Watkins Centre mixed-use development project. Gecker is an attorney and represents the Midlothian District. He was appointed by Supervisor Ed Barber (D).
I do not believe that the facts regarding Watkins Centre deferral are well understood. The County is the applicant in the Watkins Centre case. The benefit of the “proactive zoning” to the County is that we have the opportunity to ensure that the development of large tracts will occur in an integrated fashion, particularly as it regards the transportation component. As of the date of the last planning commission meeting, the developer had not produced the traffic study which they had committed to submit to the county staff in early December.
Because of the failure of the developer to submit the promised traffic study, a key component of the case could not be analyzed. Although certain individuals and groups stood up and asked that the case be passed that night, it would certainly be irresponsible to deliberate on this case (or any case) without all of the needed data. Staff had not even prepared a staff report at the time of the commission meeting. We were promised the traffic study the next morning. Again, it did not arrive. Therefore, staff drafted a condition that requires significant road improvements in conjunction with the first phase of the project. Were there good data available, it is likely that the transportation improvements required could be phased, which would increase the likelihood that the Watkins Centre will actually get built.
I am concerned that most of the public does not understand that this development is more than the “Main Street” style retail they have been shown. Site plans submitted by the developer in conjunction with the project show roughly 800,000 square feet of “big box” or strip retail, and 200,000 square feet of Main Street (or lifestyle) retail. The developer wants to develop the big boxes first; the timing of the proposed Main Street is under discussion. I met with the developer in Northern Virginia on Tuesday, January 24, 2005. The four remaining issues we are discussing are:
1) Assurance in the textual statement that a meaningful portion of the main street component of the center formerly known as the lifestyle center (now the hybrid center) will be built as part of the first phase of the development;
2) Assurance in the textual statement that the lead tenants of the main street component of the hybrid center will be either “upscale” or unique to the market;
3) Minimum size requirements for the “Main Street” component. At one time the developer suggested 350,000 sq. ft. would be built, but it is now down to 100,000 sq. ft. I would be comfortable at 200,000 sq. ft;
4) Commitment for the building of the cinema, bookstore and minimum of three “sit-down” restaurants that have been discussed in public meetings as the essentials components of a lifestyle center. Currently these components are required to be shown on the site plan; there is no requirement they actually be built.
I have heard it said that we should not be “tinkering with the market”. Zoning and land-use planning is, to a large extent, “tinkering with the market.” Nonetheless, one man’s tinkering is another man’s protection. Consider how many citizens oppose projects such as X-rated adult bookstores, certain home day cares, tattoo parlor proposals, off track betting facilities, “pay-day” lenders, etc. As it relates to the Watkins Centre, I have not met anyone who would support, for example, a Wal-Mart or K-Mart as the lead tenant.
I know of only a few people who believe that a center that completely replicates what already exists in the central part of the Midlothian district is a good idea. I believe that the lead retailer at the Watkins Centre should either be “upscale” or not already in the Chesterfield & Henrico markets. To merely shift revenue from one part of Chesterfield County to another accomplishes nothing and wastes the opportunity that a major interchange like the one at Rt. 288 & Rt. 60 affords us. At the end of the day, what we really want at that intersection are stable business uses.
I disagree with the assertion that the Watkins Centre as currently proposed will close the gap in sales with Henrico. An analysis of the various components of that gap leads one to a contrary conclusion. However, a real lifestyle center would assist in closing the gap. In addition, the retail development on the north side will allow for infrastructure improvements, including sewer, which will set up the southern side of Rt. 60 for future office and light industrial development. That is a worthwhile goal.
There is a vast difference between public policy that reflects the values and beliefs of the community and land-use and zoning criteria that seeks to interfere with the free market system. Businesses that are consistent with public policy and the community’s values and beliefs do not present the same concerns regarding the health, safety and welfare of the community as do other businesses, such as those mentioned in Mr. Gecker’s posting.
The Watkins Centre presents an opportunity for Chesterfield County move to the next level in planning, zoning, land-use, transportation and economic development matters. Government should limit its role in this development to ensuring that the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Chesterfield is protected.
Government should not involve itself in determing which merchants are, or are not, in the Watkins Centre, other than ensuring that such merchants are consistent with the general public policy of Chesterfield County.
Businesses are constantly moving from one location to another, or adding locations, based on their analysis of the market factors that govern their decisions. No amount of government interference will protect Chesterfield Town Center, or any other shopping area in Chesterfield County or its merchants, from the eventual effects of failing to respond to the market.
The best protection for Chesterfield Town Center is not to erect an imaginery wall around it to keep its current tenants from going elsewhere. Rather, the owners, managers and developers of the mall, and county planners, need to be proactive to ensure that this shopping area continues to adapt to changing market situations. Should they lose tenants to the Watkins Centre, rather than kick, scream and whine about it, aggressively market what their shopping area and that part of Chesterfield County has to offer other merchants who will take the place of any that locate in the Watkins Centre.
Free enterprise demands the adjustment to changes in the economy and marketplace. Standing still is not an option. Standing still, or resisting change, only ensures that you will be on the sidelines watching as others pass you by.
What is true in business is also true in government. The Watkins Centre could have been developed some ten years ago. Instead, Chesterfield County saw Short Pump and Stony Point developed ahead of the Watkins Centre.
Has Chesterfield County learned anything from its prior actions? Or, is it determined to make the same mistakes again?
I applaud Mr. Gecker for taking the time to lay out his views on the Watkins Centre. He makes a number of good points, particularly about the need to balance free markets with public policy concerns. As a citizen, taxpayer, and consumer, I just hope that county leaders can move on this project with all due speed so that we can enjoy the benefits on multiple levels. Otherwise, I’ll gladly keep hopping in my car and going to Short Pump and Stony Point.
However, I fail to understand the seemingly tepid actions of county leaders in terms of not keeping Chesterfield at the forefront of Virginia’s municipalities in terms of planning and development. Regardless of the need for caution, the fact remains that Chesterfield loses tons of dollars every week to Henrico simply from Short Pump, and the inability to capitalize on the commercial boom that 288 can bring is indicative of the need for a new leadership approach. It’s time that Chesterfield – Virginia’s 4th largest locality – start acting like a mature metropolitan jurisdiction and abandon the smalltown thinking that prevails.
This county needs to view Fairfax, Prince William, Loudoun, Stafford, Newport News and Virginia Beach as cohorts, and not simply keep referencing Henrico, Goochland, Powhatan, Hanover and Richmond. Otherwise, we’ll continue to just be the bedroom community for the region and simply a nice place for drivers on I-95 and 360 to grab a snack and use the restroom.
I can only hope that the developer of this new development center is reading this blog…..I can only hope that we can successfully plan a unique developement that will draw county residents as well as residents from neighboring counties and even neighborhing states so it can become the economic engine that we so desire.
It is only my opinion but I don’t think we need another Target or Walmart and strip malls aren’t that great! Don’t get me wrong……I love shopping at both of these stores but they do exist everywhere. They are not going to draw me in……for long.
Chesterfield is a bedroom community but what do we offer our residents when they come home from their jobs. Right now it seems we offer a very nice highway that takes us out of the county!
As I read this week in the Times-Dispatch about the new bowling alley over by Short Pump, I was envious! How I would love to have some state of the art facility to spend time with my children? When I went to a birthday party at “Pump It Up” in Hanover, I thought do we have one of these? When my kids need swimming gear for the neighborhood swim team, I often wonder why do I have to go to Disco Sports on the other side of the river!
When I go watch my kids play soccer at our county facilities, I often wish for a restaurant and restroom nearby. On Sunday’s, we know to pack your own because Ukrop’s will be closed next to the field. But when we go to Striker Park, luck would have it Short Pump is right next door! Well since most games seem to fall near breakfast, lunch or dinner, we are in luck to stop and eat and shop before heading back to Chesterfield.
When getting together with other couples from the neighborhood, we always seem to end up downtown or the westend. It’s not that we don’t want to spend our money in the county, but what places can you name that has party size rooms for larger parties. A place to go dancing afterwards or a comedy club. A place to go listen to a live band.
The managing team at Chesterfield Towne Center isn’t afraid of competition and they welcome growth. They just don’t want to see the same stores duplicated a mile up the street. Of course this wdould give our Revitalization Manager another project to revitalize. We are paying him big bucks so I guess we figure we would be getting our money’s worth. Doesn’t he have enough to worry about with the Cloverleaf Mall site since that project recently fell through. Do we need to hand him another big project?
Chesterfield needs to be willing to try something new ….some call it progressive thinking. It seems that we are willing to now build what we can now see…..Short Pump or Innsbrook. Guess what folks that has been done….let’s think of something of our own.