Loading...
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