HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 3:45 P.M., Monday, March 3, 1980,
in the Directors' Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, Chester House, Don Mills, Larry Tompkins,
Larry Smith, and Robert Waldren.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Nickles.
OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Sumrow, City Attorney Jim McCord, Ann Ahern, Gary Carnahan,
Bobbie Jones.
Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order.
There being no one present to represent Appeal No. 80-6, James
the Board deferred consideration of this appeal until later in
the meeting.
Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 80-7,
Sumner & Greener, A Texas General Partnership, filed on behalf
of the proposed Hilton Hotel to be constructed on the Southeast
corner of the intersection of Meadow Street and East Avenue.
E. Lindsey,
APPEAL NO. 80-6
APPEAL NO. 80-7
Sumner $ Greener
(Hilton Hotel)
MEADOW F, EAST
The applicant requests approval of variances that would permit smaller
parking stall sizes, would vary the minimum aisle width between lanes of
parking stalls and to allow valet -type parking, and to vary other parking regulations
as contained in Article 8, Sections 9 and 10, Appendix A, Fayetteville Code of
Ordinances. In the event the above variances are denied, the applicant requests
a variance in the number of parking spaces required. The location of the two parking
lots on which the variances are sought are: (1) immediately to the East of the
proposed Hilton site and on the South side of Meadow Street; and (2) on the Northwest
corner of Meadow Street and East Avenue.
Larry Sumrow was present to represent Sumner $ Greener. City Attorney Jim McCord
was also present and stated that he had been requested by City Manager Don Grimes
to attend the meeting for the purpose of reviewing the history of the proposed project
and to indicate to the Board of Adjustment the City Manager's position regarding
the proposal.
Mr. McCord reminded the Board that several years ago the City Manager had appeared
before the Board of Adjustment, with Sumner and Greener, requesting a variance in
the total number of parking stall requirements for the Continuing Education Center
and the Hilton. At that time the indication was that a parking garage was to be
constructed on the lot immediately to the East of the Hotel site. Mr. McCord said
that that is still the plan; unfortunately, the construction of the garage at this
time is not financially possible. Mr. McCord stated that there had been HUD problems
and problems with the acquisition of property on the Continuing Education Center site.
Mr. McCord said the original proposal of the City to construct the CEC and parking
garage simultaneously financed by tourism revenue bonds could not be done because
the money just was not available to pay it out. Therefore, the proposal is to have
an interim measure of valet parking operated by the Hotel management on the two sites
indicated. He said that the Planning Commission has approved the two sites as off-
site parking as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. McCord said that the City Manager wanted him to indicate to the Board of Adjustment
that the City still intends to construct a parking garage at a future date that
cannot be pinpointed. Also, the City Manager's Office concurs with the applicant in
Board of Adjustment
March 3, 1980
Page 2
a request for a variance from the minimum stall size and aisle width in order
to get a maximum number of cars on the two lots. He said he thought that both
the City and the Hotel recognize a mutual advantage of both entities to get as
many cars as possible on the lots. In answer to Mr. Yates question, Mr. McCord
said that the City is proposing to build the two parking lots itself.
Larry Sumrow advised the Board that the Hotel developers had been counting on
being able to park their automobiles in the City -owned parking garage next door to
the Hotel, but because of the delay in the construction of a parking garage, they
had asked for and gotten approval from the Planning Commission to use the two lots
as off-site parking. He indicated this had been necessary to insure the success
of the CEC and Hilton projects. Mr. Sumrow said that in order to get as many cars
as possible on the two lots, and in order to meet the Zoning requirements of 1 parking
space per guest room, they need to be permitted to go to valet -type parking. He
said the Hotel will operate this service, using a parking attendant, so that spaces
will be provided on a "first-come, first-served" basis. He said that the layout
they have designed will provide 247 spaces on the two lots with a minimum of double
stacking of automobiles, but they could have gotten as many as 276 spaces on the
two lots by stacking them three or four deep.
Robert Waldren asked if these two parking lots would be closed to the general public.
McCord said they would be available to the general public when not fully occupied
by other cars. There will be a fee for parking.
Chairman Yates asked if the Hotel would operate the two parking lots under a contract
with the City. McCord said that is what is contemplated. Chairman Yates asked
what would happen if the Hotel decided it was not profitable to operate after a year.
McCord said that the City would then have to take over the operation of the lot,
because under the City's bond covenants the City has covenanted to operate these
two lots as money -generating parking lots. The revenue from these two lots is
pledged toward the bonds issued for the Continuing Education Center. McCord
said that it is comtemplated that the Hilton Hotel will provide the attendants, but
that the City will receive the parking fees. He pointed out that if the Board of
Adjustment approved the variances in parking stall size and aisle width as requested,
the number of spaces provided would exceed the number required by the Hotel to meet
the Zoning requirements.
Mr. Tompkins asked how many automobiles they could park on the two lots without a
variance. Mr. Sumrow said they could get 200 on them if they complied with the
Zoning requirements. He said that the proposal would provide 175 spaces on the
lot to the East of the Hotel and 72 on the lot at the corner of Meadow and East Avenue.
Mrs. Mills asked the percentage of occupancy they anticipated on the Hotel. Sumrow
said that 70% to 80% would be average.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he assumed this is a hardship created by factors over
which the Hotel developers had no control and asked if they were speaking of cost
or economic hardships. McCord said it is due both to economic hardship and to
land availability. Sumrow said that if the City had constructed the City -owned
parking garage both of the problems would have been solved. He said that because
of the limited land availability and the cost of the parking garage, a parking
garage cannot be constructed at this time which creates the hardship. Sumrow said
they do not plan to use the alleys to maneuver the cars into the parking stalls, but
they do intend to stack the cars against the alley so that they can pull directly
out of the spaces into the alley in case of an emergency.
Mrs. Mills asked who would be responsibile for whatever might be left in a car and
for anyone breaking and entering into the cars. Mr. Waldren said that most parking
lots have a disclaimer for such as this. Sumrow stated that a person would have to
leave their car keys with the attendant so the car can be parked, but that they would
have a full-time attendant that would be bonded.
Board of Adjustment
March 3, 1980
Page 3
Chester House said that he was bothered about how the parking lots were acquired
and under what pretenses. He 'asked if the merchants of Fayetteville had not donated
a certain amount to create some of these parking lots in the downtown area. McCord
confirmed that there was a participation agreement years ago under which merchants
did make contributions for the acquisition of some of the parking lots in the downtown
area. He said he did not recall whether this lot was one of those lots or not.
Mr. House pointed out that this proposal would take a lot of parking spaces away
from the use of the general public of Fayetteville. McCord said that the City
recognized it was a City -owned parking lot from the outset of the planning of this
project; and that the project as planned contemplated that the existing City -owned,
public parking lot will continue as a public parking facility, but it is designed
to serve a new use in the downtown area ---the CEC together with the Hilton. McCord
said the use will not be changed, but the market it will serve will be changed.
McCord said there are plans for additional parking in the downtown area to offset
this. There is a downtown parking improvement district developing a number of lots.
Chairman Yates said that the Planning Commission is - charged with approving off-
site parking and this should be more the concern of the Planning Commission than
of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. House stated again that it bothered him to see a
public parking lot taken from the use of the customers and clients that would be
involved in the businesses closely associated with this downtown area.
Chairman Yates asked if there would be a certain number of the spaces in these lots
that would be reserved for the Hotel's use. Sumrow replied that they did not
anticipate reserving any spaces. Chairman Yates questioned what would happen to
the Hotel's patrons when the lot is full. Sumrow responded that the parking require-
ments for the Hotel are not as heavy in mid-afternoon when the shops and businesses
are open as they are at night. McCord said that from a practical standpoint, he
thought the lot East of the Hotel would stay full of Hotel patrons, while the lot
on the Northwest corner of Meadow and East would have the highest percentage of
spaces available to the general public.
Larry Smith asked if there would still be attendant parking if no variance were
given in minimum stall sizes and minimum aisle width, but a variance were given
to allow a fewer number of spaces. Sumrow there would not be.
Ann Ahern, Ahern and Ahern Designs, on Center Street directly to the South of the
proposed parking lot was present and expressed her concern. She told the Board that
there is not enough parking in that area now. She asked where the employees of the
Hotel will park. Sumrow said they anticipate 100 employees and they will be parking
on the street or sharing the spaces available to the public. Mrs. Ahern said that
if they had 200 guests in the hotel, that would take up 75% of the available spaces
Mrs. Ahern said that merchants and lawyers have a tremendous shortage of parking
available to them; delivery vehicles have to double park in Center Street; persons
cannot park in the lot that will be East of the Hotel half the time now, because it
stays full. She said what was scheduled in the Court House greatly influenced the
availablility of parking spaces. She said if the Board lessens the number of spaces
available to the general public, it will be doing the public and downtown business
people a disservice.
Robert Waldren stated that part of the problem may be construction people working
on building projects in the downtown area. Mrs. Ahern said that not only will people
have to pay to park in the lot, but that the attendant will expect a tip.
McCord stated that the City and everyone recognizes that the City has a shortage of
parking and that it is going to get worse. He said the variances requested would
allow a maximum utilization of the land available. He said he did not know when the
parking garage would be constructed. The State Legislature passed an act in 1979
which provides for a sales tax rebate for tourism type of facilities based on
tax which you can demonstrate was generated by the tourism. The City hopes to
qualify for some of these rebates.
tyy�
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
March 3, 1980
Page 4
The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Yates stated that he was bothered by the request and with any request when
the Board is asked to reduce the number of parking spaces. He said that he really
felt it was out of the Board's hands when the Planning Commission, who is charged
with approving off-site parking, apparently approves the same lot over and over again
for off-site parking. He said in this case, it looked like the Board might even
be helping to improve the situation by approving this request.
Larry Tompkins asked if the Board might not be setting a precedence for changing the
size of the parking spaces regardless of the mechanism, in this case valet parking.
McCord and Yates both stated that any other cases must be reviewed and judged on
their own merits.
McCord said that he thought that in this case they have demonstrated a limited
availability of land which the next case might not be able to do. McCord told
the Board that he thought they could condition a variance, if approved, to be
effective so long as the land in question is used for surface parking. In response
to Chairman Yates earlier comments about the Planning Commission doubling up approval
of off-site parking sites, Mr. McCord said that the Commission did approve the
South half of the lot directly to the North of Mcllroy Bank for Mcllroy Bank off-
site parking. The other lot was a privately owned lot that will be developed and
it has not been approved for off-site parking for private enterprise.The Commission
did approve the use of the lot to the East of the Hotel for both the CEC and the
Hilton Hotel, the rationale being that many of the patrons of the CEC would be
staying at the Hotel and many Hotel patrons would be attending the CEC. There would
be an overlap of use and that would not necessarily require 244 spaces for the Hotel
and 73 spaces for the CEC.
Larry Tompkins questioned if the Board of Adjustment has the authority to approve
valet parking. McCord said that the Board does have the authority to vary the parking
stall size requirement and to vary the aisle width, then if the Hotel wishes to use
valet parking, that is their business.
Larry Smith commented that one good thing about the request is that it would furnish
more spaces for parking; a bad thing would be that it would take the parking out
of the hands of the general public. He said that he did not like valet parking.
Robert Waldren moved that the Board grant the variances requested to vary the
minimum parking stall size and to vary the aisle width to accomodate 244 spaces
on the condition that valet or attendant parking will be provided. Larry Tompkins
suggested amending the motion that the variance would be in effect until such time
as a parking garage is constructed and then the requirements would revert back to
the size of spaces required in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Waldren agreed to the
amendment proposed by Mr. Tompkins. Mr. Tompkins then seconded the motion.
In answer to Mr. Smith's question, Mr. Sumrow said that at the time the parking
garage was proposed, there would have been an attendant who would collect the
parking fee, but that the car owner would park his own car. He said the parking
garage had been planned for 300 parking spaces initially with the structure designed
to be increased to 500 spaces.
Chairman Yates stated that the City has evidently decided that as the downtown area
develops they are going on the concept that off-site parking will be approved and
utilized; in the case of the CEC and Hilton, the City has decided that the developer
will not be required to furnish parking. He said that given these facts, it seems
the City is accepting the responsibility for furnishing parking not only for those
developers, but for those who come downtown to shop.
Mrs. Mills said that she was bothered by the doubling up of approval for off-site
parking areas and by the attendant parking. She said she thought the parking meters
had been removed downtown to encourage people to come there to shop.
•
Board of Adjustment
March 3, 1980
Page 5
McCord advised the Board that they should consider whether the applicant has shown
practical difficulty or undue hardship and whether the proposal is consistent
with the spirit of the (Zoning) ordinance.
Mr. Sumrow said that they could get about 215 or 220 spaces on the lot without
varying the aisle width and without using an attendant if the stall sizes were
reduced but they would have to utilize the alleys for getting into and out of the
spaces.
Chester House said that in his opinion some other Board, other than the Board of
Adjustment, needs to "give" this parking lot to the Hotel. Robert Waldren said
that it was his understanding that in essence the Board of Directors has already
done that. McCord pointed out that only the Board of Directors can grant a
variance from the Zoning requirements. Chester House said that he would like to
see the lot left on a "catch -as -catch -can" basis.
Mrs. Mills asked what size parking stall requirements would be required when the
parking garage is constructed. Bobbie Jones said the Ordinance requires 81 ft. by
19 ft. spaces for parking garages.
The motion to grant the variances in minimum stall sizes and in minimum aisle widths
to accomodate 244 spaces with valet parking for an interim period until a parking
garage is constructed was approved 5-0-1; with Mills, Tompkins, Yates, Smith and
Waldren voting "Aye" and House abstaining from voting.
Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 80-6, APPEAL NO. 80-6
for property at 1929-2025 East Oaks Drive, on an application JAMES E. LINDSEY
to vary minimum lot width for townhouse lots. 1929-2025 East Oaks Drive
• Gary Carnahan was present to represent the request.
Chairman Yates asked Bobbie Jones to explain the requirements. She stated that
the Zoning Ordinance lists requirements of 24 ft. wide for a townhouse lot; 10,000
square feet for townhouse development; and 2,500 square feet for an individual
townhouse lot.
Gary Carnahan explained that Mr. Lindsey proposes to take four lots platted at
100 ft. wide and replat them into 16 townhouse lots having four structures with
a total of 16 dwelling units on them. He said the 2 interior units in each building
will be only 18 ft. wide; therefore, the interior lots will only be 18 ft. wide.
He said there is a trend in housing because of higher costs and higher interest rates
which makes it harder for a young couple to buy their first home. They are trying
to provide housing for folks trying to get started with their first home. The
individual units will be the equivalent of about a 1,200 square foot house
He said the lots as presently platted are zoned for and could have an apartment
building on each lot with eight 2 -bedroom apartments on each 100 ft. wide lot.
He said they are not trying to get around the density requirements. He said they
could not make the units 24 ft. wide without making the cost of the units go beyond
the price of the people they are trying to sell the houses to.
Mr. Tompkins asked if the hardship were not then an economic one. Mr. Carnahan
said that it is an economic hardship set by an overall trend in housing and the
housing market. He said this type of housing is found in other areas of the country.
Mr. Tompkins asked if the 2 exterior units in each structure would be 24 ft. wide.
Mr. Carnahan said they would not be;but that the requirement is not for a 24 ft.
wide dwelling unit, but for a 24 ft. wide lot. Mr. Tompkins asked if this request
could be assumed to be applicable to the entire R-2 zoned property there. Mr.
• Carnahan said they are only requesting it for these four platted lots. The density
proposed per acre in this development was discussed,aas were the proposed setbacks.
Mr. Carnahan said the parking would be in the front and they would have common use
of the driveways. He said the front yards would not be permitted to be fenced, but
that each 18 ft. wide rear yard could be fenced. The units would be approximately
RAS
Board of Adjustment
March 3, 1980
Page 6
18 ft. by 34 ft. Mr. Carnahan said that in order to make the units marketable,
they had to stay within a certain square footage. He said they had not tried
to work out a design in which the individual units would each be 24 ft. wide
because the exterior units on each building would be too close to the next
building.
Bobbie Jones said this would also give them problems with the platted utility
easements along some of the lots. Chairman Yates asked why this was not being
processed as a PUD. Bobbie Jones said that one reason was that the PUD rules
require at least 30% of the total land area be set aside as open space, either
private or public. The parking and driveway areas and the privately owned lots
cannot be counted toward this requirement. She said this really does not have
any common open space.
Mr. Carnahan pointed out again that they could build'.apartments for rental and
get twice as many units on the property as what they are proposing.
Mrs. Mills said that she thought the 24 ft. wide requirements, which were adopted
in 1970, came from back when "we" had ample land, ample money, and ample housing
and when you put everything on a "nice -sized" lot. She said she thinks it is
an innovative idea in which we are coming to the idea where you don't have a
lot of land with your house. She said a lot of people don't want a yard;and she
feels this fills a need of people who either can't get into housing any other way
or who don't want to be bothered with any more housing. Mr. Tompkins questioned
whether the ordinance should not then be changed.
Chester House moved to approve the variances as requested. Don Mills seconded the
motion.
Chairman Yates asked if the applicant would be delayed should the Board defer a
decision on the variance until the applicant could go to the Planning Commission
to ask that the ordinance be changed. Mr. Carnahan said that this will go to the
Planning Commission for approval of the replat on March 10 if the Board approves
the variance. He requested action on the variance.as it would take more time to
wait to see if the ordinance would be amended.
The motion to grant the variances requested was approved by a vote of 4-1-1 with
House, Mills, Yates and Waldren voting "Aye", Tompkins voting "Nay", and Smith
abstaining from voting.
The minutes of the February 18, 1980 Board of Adjustment meeting were MINUTES
approved as mailed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 P.M.
/117