City sorts through fallout of Woman’s Exchange appeal

On April 13, the City Commission made a historic ruling: It overturned staff’s decision to approve a proposed expansion to the Woman’s Exchange, siding with Laurel Park residents who argued the project was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

The decision calls into question the future of the Woman’s Exchange at its location at 539 S. Orange Ave. — before the appeal, Executive Director Karen Koblenz said the expansion was crucial for the consignment shop’s continued growth. However, it also creates another line of questioning: How does the City Commission’s ruling impact the way staff interprets the zoning code?

There has long been a tension between new developments and the existing conditions in the city. An ongoing period of growth has led to some resident pushback against the influx of new projects, though staff has said it must evaluate projects based solely on the criteria in the code. City Commissioner Susan Chapman has said provisions regarding compatibility in the code give staff more leeway than they acknowledge in deciding whether to approve a development.

“This was really an appeal of a building permit in a specific set of circumstances.” — Tim Litchet 

The Woman’s Exchange hearing seemed to bring these issues to the forefront. Tim Litchet, the city’s director of neighborhood and development services, wasn’t certain the ruling had any broader significance, however. Litchet made the decision to grant a building permit for the Woman’s Exchange project on Rawls Avenue, and he believed the commission’s discussion focused on the particulars of that decision.

“This was really an appeal of a building permit in a specific set of circumstances,” Litchet said. “The Board of Adjustment will give interpretations of sections of the code; this was more regarding the project itself.”

City Attorney Robert Fournier is still reviewing the consequences of the appeal, but he doesn’t necessarily agree with Litchet. In May, he will hold a discussion with the commission about the fallout of the decision. As of now, he believes that the appeal carries significance for how the code is interpreted in the future.

“There will be some collateral issues we have to talk about in terms of ramifications of the decision,” Fournier said.

Fournier gave a few examples of possible issues. The heart of the dispute between Laurel Park and the Woman’s Exchange had to do with a loading zone on Rawls Avenue. The residents argued truck traffic would not mesh with the character of the apartment buildings on the other side of Rawls.

Under the code, businesses are only allowed to have ingress and egress points on nonprimary streets. The other two streets surrounding the Woman’s Exchange, Orange Avenue and Oak Street, are primary streets. How, then, does this decision impact the planning process for nearby properties on Orange Avenue — are they allowed to use Rawls for ingress and egress?

“There will be some collateral issues we have to talk about in terms of ramifications of the decision.” — Robert Fournier 

Both city staff and Woman’s Exchange representatives said the code required the creation of a new loading zone, and per the regulations in the code, that loading zone could only be placed on Rawls Avenue. Because the city rejected the project, does that mean that a new loading zone wouldn’t be required for similar building expansions?

Fournier isn’t saying that the commission’s decision has to be reconsidered in light of these questions. Still, he believes there needs to be a thorough examination of how this case may shape forthcoming developments in the area — which may prove important relatively soon, as the Woman’s Exchange considers its future on Orange Avenue.

“I’m trying to make sure I understand all of the ramifications that might come from the decision, so they can be considered at the same time,” Fournier said.