Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-06 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 4:00 P.M. on Monday, December 6, 1982 in Room 409 of the Continuing Education Center. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: The consider November Tompkins, the last Chairman Chester House, Robert Waldren, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker, Don Mills, David Crittenden, Butch Robertson None Robert Beall, Jerry Mahanke, Roger Schutte, Pauline Barfield, John Power, Jr., Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy and others first item on the agenda was to MINUTES the Minutes of the last meeting of 15, 1982. It was moved by Larry seconded by Don Mills and passed, 7-0, to approve the Minutes of meeting. The next item on the agenda APPEAL NO. 82-17 was public hearing on Appeal No. BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE 82-17, Butterfield Trail Village, JOYCE STREET south of Joyce Street and west of Old Missouri Road; application to reduce parking requirements, which are 1.5 spaces per living unit. Chairman Chester House opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak in favor of the appeal. Bob Beall, Vice -President of Butterfield Trail Village, stated they were a not-for-profit organization whose sole purpose is to build and operate a retirement village; that they are closely associated with four local churches; they have chosen Retirement Centers of America as consultant to help in planning and development; that Roger L. Schutte and Associates is their architect. Jerry Mahanke of Retirement Centers of America stated the village is designed to care for persons 62 years of age or older. He displayed a Phase I site plan. He said their request is for a one-to-one ratio of parking spaces per living unit. He said the project provides for all needs of the residents, that those who become ill but are not needing hospital care will be transferred to an on-site health facility when necessary. They provide small bus and limousine transportation to the doctor, dentist or shopping areas. There are dining, entertainment and other activities on the site. He said the average age in the facility is 77 years and their parking needs are not the same as in an apartment complex. Roger Schutte displayed drawings of the project's design and stated this is not an apartment project. He showed the floor plan of the commons area which he said includes a central kitchen and dining room, games room, library, crafts rooms, woodworking shop, exercise room, atrium, lounges, etc., and he stressed the environment is designed to take care of all the needs of the residents. They have tried to develop a peripheral drive arrangement and distribute the parking throughout the project so it is convenient to all. He said they think 112 • • • • Board of Adjustment December 6, 1982 Page Two it is important to not provide more parking than necessary and do not wish to use up space for parking areas which will stand empty. He said in projects such as this, many residents have automobiles when they move in and, as time goes by, they get rid of them because of the on-site transportation available. He said at the maturity of the project the parking needs are usually i a car per unit but that, at the outset, they usually provide a one-to-one ratio. He said they have left space on the site in case additional parking should ever be necessary. He said in most cases, they must request a waiver from standard parking requirements, although some communities with retirement centers are beginning to develop special parking regulations for situations such as this. He said Scottsdale, Arizona requires 6/10 car per living unit for retirement centers. He said Jerry Mahanke had taken actual car counts from projects which have been operating over a number of years. Mr. Mahanke listed ratios from various projects throughout the country: Number of Residents Number of Cars Counted 535 100 193 101 115 68 360 49% 93 43 120 28 153 64 165 58 231 110 225 84 650 342 200 90 85 39 He said these counts all represent 2,621 residents with 1,068 cars counted, or 40.7% need for cars. Don Mills asked if any of these towns had public transportation. Mr. Mahanke said that some do but that it was very seldom used, because door- to-door transportation is provided on the site on regular days. Roger Schutte was asked which cities he knew of that had recognized a need to change parking requirements for retirement home facilities. He stated the only one he knewof was Scottsdale but that there were others, probably in the Sun Belt, in Phoenix or in Florida. Robert Waldren asked if any figures were available on how much parking is required for visitors. Dennis Becker asked how parking for the staff is taken care of. Mahanke said that, since their need is less than the one to one they wish to have, there is more than enough space to take care of the staff and visitors. Mills asked the number of bedrooms in each unit and was told they are either one or two bedrooms per unit with three different apartment sizes, each complete with kitchen. Larry Tompkins asked Mahanke if he thought car ownership was increasing among the elderly. Mahanke stated that their experience shows car ownership among the elderly decreases, and that out of those who own cars at the villages, only 50% use them. 113 0 Board of Adjustment December 6, 1982 Page Three Tompkins pointed out that many retired persons acquire boats and have need for a car because of this. Mahanke explained that the village would have residents whose age averages 77, that these persons are somewhat older than the kind of retired persons Tompkins talked about, that out of some 10,000 residents across the country, in 25 projects, only about 40 people are under the age of 70. Tompkins asked Schutte to expand on the statement in the application that "categorizing retirement apartments within the broad classification of multi -family dwelling units is an unnecessary penalty". Schutte said they were referring only to parking, and feel that requiring more than the 1 to 1 ratio is a penalty. Schutte quoted from some studies made where parking experience included staff and visitors at projects in California. He stated the highest ratio of cars to units was 53% and the lowest was 22%. He said, to include the impact of staff and visitors, they selected three facilities and made car counts, which were taken at different times and days over an extended period of time. He said an average of 50.4 cars were counted at one project, the maximum count checked was 61 for 158 apartments, being a maximum demand of 39%; one other project had an average car count of 70, the maximum car count was 86 for 258 apartments, a maximum demand of 33%; at a third project where nursing care was highly intensive, and affects staff and visitors parking there, there was a 58% ratio- this.mot being. a .typical'facility. Bobbie Jones was asked about parking for Hillcrest Towers. She stated she had not checked into this, but they didn't have much of a parking need. In answer to a question from Larry Tompkins, it was stated the one to one ratio proposed applies to cottages and apartments. With no further comments made either in favor of or in opposition to the appeal, the public hearing was closed. The next item was public hearing APPEAL NO. 82-18 on Appeal No. 82-18, Pauline R. Barfield, PAULINE BARFIELD 1979 Finger Road; application to vary 1979 FINGER ROAD setbacks. Chairman House said the applicant needs to go to work and asked if any members objected to hearing her appeal and voting on it directly afterwards. There were no objections. Pauline Barfield stated she had planned to build an addition onto her home and found out that her home does not meet setback requirements for the A-1 zone in which she lives. The addition would make her 11 feet from the property line and she is required to be twenty feet back. She is asking for a variance of nine feet so that she can expand her home for her elderly mother-in-law who lives with her. She said her neighbor next door had written a letter in which he states he has no objections. Larry Tompkins asked what was the difference in elevation between the front and the rear of her property. Pauline Barfield said it was quite steep. He asked if she feels the slope creates a hardship in terms of the improvement she proposes to the rear yard. She said from the road to where the bedroom will be finished there is possibly a 32 foot variation in elevation. She said the front is built on a higher elevation. She stated the footings have been poured and approved. Tompkins said he thought the land sloped quite rapidly • • • Board of Adjustment December 6, 1982 Page Four looking to the west. Pauline stated from the road to the end of her property there may be a variation of six feet. She has a 12 acre lot. Robert Waldren asked how close her neighbor's property was. She said he states his house is more than 80 feet from her house. He was not willing to sell part of his property. There was no one else present who spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal. Bobbie Jones said a building permit was issued for pouring the footing and the contractor was aware that, if the appeal were to be denied, that part of his footing could not be built on, but he elected to pour the entire footing at once. Pauline Barfield explained that she plans an expansion of two existing bedrooms and bath, to be extended an additional 14 feet west by the same dimensions of the house. Chairman House closed the public hearing. Don Mills moved to approve the APPEAL NO. 82-18 granting of a variance to Pauline Barfield. The motion was seconded by Larry Tompkins. Tompkins stated he thought the addition to the house will give longevity to a non -conforming structure, but because of the slope posing a hardship, he feels the variance is appropriate. The motion passed, 7-0. David Crittenden moved to APPEAL NO. 82-17 consider Appeal No. 82-17 at this time as he may need to leave the meeting early. The motion was seconded by Larry Tompkins and passed, 7-0. Butch Robertson agreed on the parking proposed for the elderly residents but has reservations on the parking available for the staff. He said he thought if the Health Center on the site were full that would add 40 additional residents to the village, making a potential total of 288. On the other hand, he thinks it possible lig spaces per unit may be too much. Robert Waldren thinks if the parking proposed is approved and it is found later that more parking is needed, the project will have to do something to increase the parking and he thinks there is additional area there to do it. Dennis Becker asked if the architect has planned for the possible eventuality of having to provide 11 spaces per unit. Schutte said they have not looked at that as of yet. Becker stated he was in favor of recognizing the special aspect of the project but would like to pursue a conditional clause that extra parking be provided if the figures as proposed don't meet the need. David Crittenden said it should be considered that, if the village does not have enough parking, the residents will not be taking up street parking as would happen in other areas, because it would not be available in this area. He said because of this, he feels that it would never be harmful to the rest of the general public. IIS Board of Adjustment December 6, 1982 Page Five Jerry Mahanke explained that most persons staying at the on-site health center would be residents of the village. He also pointed out that 15 years in the future there will be people 90 years old living permanently at the health center because of ill health. Crittenden stated he was in favor of the proposed parking. Chester House stated that, if he and his wife lived at a facility such as the village, they would each have a car and would expect their children would visit often in their cars, but admitted that that kind of a situation might be the exception. He stated he thought many people living at the village might be forgotten by their families. He said, with employees to consider, he thinks the ratio should be 11 cars per unit. He said if the situation were changed by the time Phase II were to be built, he would be more sympathetic to the proposal. Crittenden pointed out the 11 car requirement would mean having 372 parking spaces for 248 77 -year old people, which he thinks is a waste of space. Jerry Mahanke stated there were about 75% singles and 25% married residents in most facilities and that about 60% of the residents would be locals. Don Mills wondered if some elderly persons might want to get out on days other than those scheduled for the bus transportation, and also that, even though some persons might prefer to use the bus transportation, they might not want to give up their cars. She stated though that many of the residents will be older and many not in good health. She said the lack of parking proposed for staff and maintenance people bothers her. Jerry Mahanke said the staff would total about 60 persons, about 24 of whom would be on duty at one time. He said parking spaces are designed to be wider and farther apart, as many of the elderly people who drive seem to have less reaction time and many of them are a hazard to society when driving an automobile. He said this is why they encourage them to get rid of their autos. Larry Tompkins stated he was impressed with the data presented, said he appreciates the suggestion of looking at the special district concept for retirement villages, he said the proposed project is not compatible with the intent of the zoning ordinance, he is concerned about the cottages having the same parking requirements as apartments and thinks 1.5 spaces would be better for the cottages. Mahanke stated the number of cottages in the retirement villages is much smaller than the number of apartments, as the more active residents live in the cottages and there are not that many active residents. He stated every cottage has a parking stall attached to it. Crittenden stated he thought there would be more than enough parking with just one space per unit. He said he thought the two nursing homes in town had plenty of parking. Bobbie Jones said she thought Apple Tree Inn had one parking space per bed. Crittenden said the Board of Adjustment is often asked to make Judgments without enough information on how it would affect our community and he thinks the data presented is persuasive. Butch Robertson moved to approve a ratio of one parking space per unit on Phase I only. The motion was seconded by Robert Waldren. Don Mills asked about the feeling of the Board on a one-to-one ratio with additional parking for staff. Butch Robertson said he did not think the staff parking was a problem. 116 • Board of Adjustment December 6, 1982 Page Six Crittenden asked if a variance would retard planning if it were restricted to Phase I only. Mahanke stated it would be no problem. Schutte said he thinks there is additional parking available, and noted that there is an additional parking space available behind every carport with the garden homes, so you might say the cottages have two parking spaces each. The motion passed, 6-1, with Larry Tompkins voting "nay". The last item on APPEAL NO. 82-19 the agenda was public POWER LANES $ SARAH'S COUNTRY STORE hearing on Appeal No. 82-19, JOHN POWER, JR. John Power, Jr., Highway 71-B across from K -Mart Store between King Pizza Restaurant and Power Bowl Lanes, application to vary parking requirements. John Power, Jr., was present. Mr. Power stated he is asking for a parking variance for Power Bowl Lanes and a convenience store he wishes to build between the present King Pizza and Power Lanes. He said he disagreed on the requirement of 6 parking spaces per lane for a bowling alley and thought that 144 spaces were not needed. He asked for discussion on how this requirement was arrived at. He thinks between three and four persons within an hour bowl on a lane. He said that a car count was made on Tuesday and Saturday nights, their busiest times, and the maximum number of cars found was 55 at the peak hour. He plans for the convenience store to be 2200 or 2300 square feet and does not feel there is a tremendous need for parking there as the average customer remains in the parking lot for two or three minutes, and there is never more than 12 or 15 cars parked at a convenience store at one time. Butch Robertson announced he would abstain from voting on this appeal because of a conflict of interest. Don Mills stated, regarding the size of the convenience store, that she thought in the case of a franchise, the size is pre -determined and did not vary Power stated this was not the case, that it depends on the community and the volume of business. In answer to Larry Tompkins, Bobbie Jones said Brown's Little Jug is required to have one parking space per every 200 square feet of building space and therefore, they would need only five spaces Tompkins asked if there would be appropriate off-street loading for all three parcels. Bobbie Jones said they have allowed some behind the property. Tompkins said he counted 21 spaces and asked if that were appropriate for adequate parking for King Pizza. Bobbie Jones stated King Pizza is required to have 15 spaces. Bobbie Jones said the question is, the shaded section shown is not existing parking and they do not wish to put that parking in. She said the lighter area is existing parking and the request is to have the line north of the King Pizza property line indicated to be considered separate and apart from the line south of the north property line of King Pizza so that even the existing parking behind King Pizza would not be tied to either Sarah's Country Store or to Power Lanes. She said this was a lease from the owner of King Pizza to the other owners that they would prefer not to have to be bound to. 117 Board of Adjustment December 6, 1982 Page Seven Bobbie Jones explained that part of the land in the drawing is owned by Mr. Power and part is owned by Dr. Hays, with the possibility of a lease. She said theproperty north of the north line of King Pizza due west, from that point north, was originally purchased from Otis Cardwell as one separate parcel. From that north line of King Pizza, southward, was purchased off the 71 Drive -In Theatre property. She said the development plan at the time Power Bowl and King Pizza was built was brought in as a large scale development, although they had been purchased as separate parcels. Power stated if a variance were granted for parking for Power Lanes, in his opinion, there would be enough parking then for the Country Store. He said the entrance and exit shown is the only one to the Country Store, but that many people. will come to the Store from the other parking lots, and as far as he knows, no one from King Pizza has any objections to this. Larry Tompkins asked, if this is a separate piece of property, are not two access points permitted for every piece of property platted. Bobbie Jones said the City Code requires safety zones of 25 feet between individual driveways. The Planning Commission encourages joint driveways to reduce the number of driveways. Tompkins said, in terms of the bowling alley with offices above, he counts 83-85 spaces which is about 3.4 or 3.5 ratio rather than 6. Power said he thinks for the bowling alley there are only 21/2 hours a day during which time there are a maximum of 55 cars parked. He stated that usually those persons using the office space park only between the hours of 9 and 5. Tompkins said he thinks, with the exception of the bowling alley, all the other parking is adequate. Power stated he thought the average needed for the bowling alley should be 3.4 to 3.6 spaces per lane, rather than 6. Becker stated if we count the 16 spaces in front of the country store which parallel Highway 71 he would average over four spaces per lane easily. Power stated in the five years he has been in business he has never averaged more than four cars per lane. He said they stay open until 11:00 P.M. daily and until 12 or 1:00 A.M. on weekends. Bobbie Jones stated there were more spaces shown on his property other than the 103. She said 158 spaces are required for the Power Bowl building. She said Jim Vizzier had written up the original parking requirement for bowling alleys and she does not know where he came up with 6 spaces per lane. Power stated at one time six people bowled on a league and that may be where the number came from, although in reality, he said, there are not that many cars ever for each lane. He said a reduction in the parking would not give him a problem with office space parking, since that space is only used between 9 and 5, and only one business really utilizes any parking; also, they only have five office spaces rented out. Bobbie Jones said the request is to reduce the requirement for the Power Bowl building to 103 spaces and that Sarah's Country Store will require 12 for a total of 115 spaces. That is the number of spaces shown on Mr. Power's property lying north of the north property line of King Pizza. There was some discussion of the possibility of a bowling boom in the future creating need for more parking. Power thinks the figures from his first two or three years of business show your peak amount of business and, since he does not plan for any additions to the bowling alley, he feels business will not boom. lib Board of Adjustment December 6, 1982 Page Eight Don Mills asked, if the bowling APPEAL NO. 82-19 alley were changed to another use, would the parking be adequate. Bobbie Jones said the amount of parking would be determined according to the amount of square footage in the building (one per 300 square feet for offices). Mr. Power said the lower floor of the building did not have the same amount of floor space as the offices did, and explained that, because of the high expense of building bowling lanes, it is highly probable that the building would never be used for anything other than a bowling alley. Robert Waldren moved to grant the variance as requested. The motion was seconded by Dennis Becker. Crittenden said, if people don't have room to park, they will not frequent a business which does not provide parking space. He thinks, if a parking problem develops here, it will not harm the general public. Waldren stated he thinks there are adequate parking facilities, and thinks Mr. Power is a good enough businessman that he is not going to plan for anything which would be detrimentallto his business. He said if customers do not have adequate parking they simply won't patronize the businesses. The motion passed, 4-2-1, with Chester House, Robert Waldren, Dennis Becker and David Crittenden voting "aye", Don Mills and Larry Tompkins voting "nay" and Butch Robertson abstaining. It was moved by Butch Robertson, seconded by Robert Waldren, and passed, 7-0, to adjourn the meeting at 5:40 P.M. Larry Tompkins asked Bobbie Jones to request the Update Committee to review our present ordinances, such as the one for parking requirements. Bobbie Jones said this kind of review is taking place now. A