HomeMy WebLinkAbout108-06 RESOLUTION4i
RESOLUTION NO. 108-06
AN RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF EAST
SQUARE DEVELOPERS TO ADD TWO FLOORS OF
HOTEL ROOMS AS A MINOR MODIFICATION OF C-
PZD 05-1610
WHEREAS, the City Council approved C-PZD 05-1610 East Square
Development on December 20, 2005 to replace the former blighted Mountain Inn and
three other vacant and deteriorating structures; and
WHEREAS, a prestigious hotel chain will establish a luxury hotel in the building
if two more floors of hotel rooms are permitted to be constructed; and
WHEREAS, East Square Developers have requested that their building be
allowed two additional stories of hotel rooms identical to the already permitted hotel
room stories as a "Minor Modification" of C-PZD 05-1610, pursuant to §166.06 (I)(1) of
the Unified Development Code; and
WHEREAS, East Square Developers have a right to appeal the Zoning and
Development Administrator's decision not to approve these two additional stories as a
"Minor Modification"; and
WHEREAS, allowing two additional floors at this site on College Avenue near
other large downtown buildings is appropriate, will further enhance surrounding
commercial and office structures, and is compatible with all the reasons that justified the
original request for a sixteen story building.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS•
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby
grants the appeal and approves the developers' request to allow construction of two
additional floors of hotel rooms that will be identical in outward appearance to the other
floors of hotel rooms so that the total authorized height shall be eighteen stories as a
Minor Modification of C-PZD 05-1610 All other terms, conditions, requirements and
plans for C-PZD 05-1610 shall remain unaltered and in full force and effect.
_ AC-cc\iY pc •1c;p
=U• •4
APPROVED:
By:
ATTEST:
By: «iQ
S, NDRA SMITH, City Clerk
RP
:FAYETTEVILLE:
•99KANS.•\
o
yfyGTON GO
lounHhIt'
City Council
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning 4
Date: May 23, 2006
Subject: Request for approval to increase height of East Square Development PZD (C-
PZD 05-1610)
6/6/‘
Meeting of June 6, 2006 /es
Agenda Item Number
C- p&p o$-1410/
bas sg j6rJ
fr19I
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff has recommended denial of a requested administrative approval to increase
the building height of the proposed hotel/condo/retail building known as East Square
Development Planned Zoning District. It is within the ability of the Zoning and
Development Administrator to approve a Minor Modification to an approved Planned
Zoning District maximum building height if the request falls within 20% of the originally
approved height; this request does meet the criteria of a Minor Modification. However, at
this time, staff finds the request to be substantial in nature, especially with regard to
height, and hereby recommends this item be considered by the City Council for a final
decision.
BACKGROUND
The Planned Zoning District ordinance for this project was approved by the City Council
in December of 2005. The project proposed a 16 -story mixed-use project, consisting of
147 hotel rooms, 25 condominiums, restaurant, retail and meeting space. At that time, the
applicant elected not to utilize the newly adopted PZD ordinance Master Development
Criteria, due to the fact the project had been submitted under the previous ordinance. The
previous ordinance did not allow for administrative approvals; rather, the project passed
by the City Council was the one expected to be built, with changes to zoning only
allowed by returning to the City Council for consideration. The current PZD ordinance
does allow administrative approvals of minor modifications to a PZD, subject to certain
criteria. For increases in height, the request must be within 20% of the original height
established with the associated PZD project. The applicant states a need for 53 additional
hotel rooms in order to attract a certain hotel, citing market forces. In order to
accommodate this request, instead of utilizing existing space within the hotel, the
applicant has requested an additional two (2) floors, for a total of eighteen (18). In this
case, an additional two stories in height as compared to the 16 stories approved is a 13%
increase, which does meet the threshold for administrative approval. However, because
the ordinance under which this project was approved did not allow for such
modifications, staff finds it appropriate to be reviewed by the City Council, as opposed to
administrative approval.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2006
Agenda Item Number
DISCUSSION
The following supporting documents, among others, may be found in the attached packet:
I. Letter of Request from applicant for City Council consideration of adding two
(2) additional floors to the approved C-PZD 05-1610 for East Square
Development, for an I 8 -story height.
II. Letter and parking charts detailing the proposed parking ratios for the project
III. Letters between the applicant and staff regarding the administrative approval
IV. Copy of approved ordinance (No. 4804), with attached conditions of approval
V. Reduced copy of approved site plan
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
May 22, 2006
Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville Arkansas
RE• ADDITIONAL TWO FLOORS,
EAST SQUARE PROJECT
Dear Jeremy,
R 1 G: 1 T E RED
ROBERT SHARP. ARCHITECT, INC
525 SOUTH SCHOOL AVE i STE 220
FAYETTEVILLE I AR
PHONE:4171.112.0229
FAX: 47t.442-5711
R 5 A
The East Square redevelopment project was approved by the city Council on December 20, 2005
as a Planned Zoning District. This project was brought forward as a PZD rather than as a LSD
under the C4 zoning for two reasons: First due to the difficulty of constructing the parking
structure on a site that was limited by historic building and the programmatic requirements of a
first class commercial hotel and convention center. Second, the residential condominiums are a
conditional use under the C4 zoning. Therefore the parking structure and the residential
condominium units combined to lead us to the PZD process.
We did not utilize the PZD process as a way to gain additional height. As you know, the C4
zone has no height limit. Another factor that has contributed to the ultimate height of the
building is my client's willingness to locate the tallest part of the project as far away from the
historic square and the historic Washington County Courthouse as possible. This decision to
preserve views to these sensitive areas, as well as their decision to preserve the existing historic
buildings have resulted in the limited footprint of the hotel Market forces have dictated that
another 53 rooms be added in order for the hotel to have every chance for economic success.
We ask that you consider the following items when making your recommendation to the City
Council:
1. The additional two floors will not exceed the current height of C4 zoning.
2. The PZD was utilized to enable the residential units and the parking deck, not the
hotel tower.
3. This site has been slated for renewal and redevelopment after a long dismal
history of economic failure. Market forces are a key aspect of this project.
East Square
page 1 Project Number 00001
•
Experts in the hospitality field have told us that increased private investment in
the form of 53 additional rooms is called for. We ask for a similar commitment
from the City of Fayetteville.
4. Much of the recent controversy over height is related to preserving views of Old
Main and the historic and unique character of Dickson Street, neither of which is
at issue here.
5. One of the benefits of the PZD process is flexibility. My client should not be in
the situation of having his development rights reduced as a consequence of his
agreeing to meeting the higher standards of PZD development. In essence, he has
agreed to spend additional monies on the facade of the parking structure, and has
committed to using historically appropriate materials on the hotel tower. In
addition, he has agreed to preserve existing historic buildings that contribute to
the fabric of the neighborhood.
6. The 2020 plan and the Downtown Master Plan both urge revitalization of the
downtown area and the development of this site in particular. We feel we can
better meet these goals with the addition of 53 rooms.
1
7. This building represents a transition from the 1970s zoning that envisioned
unlimited height in the downtown area and the new lower slung city proposed by
the Downtown Master Plan. While my clients and I welcome many aspects of the
proposed Downtown Master Plan, we feel that we are not able to look to it for
definitive guidance until it is subject to final citizen input, thoroughly reviewed by
the Aldermen, and passed into law.
For the above reasons, I ask for your support in amending PZD 05-1610. I strongly feel that the
benefits that this project represents to the City of Fayetteville are enormous.
Sincerely,
12— ghat*
Robert Sharp, Arcl11'tect
cc: Richard Alexander
File
East Square
page 2 Project Number 00001
Da °1d maw o ana(I aaenbs )se,
.
.1 'A 1101
as fo �d luauido lanau algin s 1se -
oilrnai31S113 :z a mr!
OUP •••••.1. ea
..• ...m—••••• , aimmom.••
RESOLUTION NO.
AN RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF EAST
SQUARE DEVELOPERS TO ADD TWO FLOORS OF
HOTEL ROOMS AS A MINOR MODIFICATION
OF C-PZD 05-1610
WHEREAS, the City Council approved C-PZD 05-1610 East Square Development on
December 20, 2005 to replace the former blighted Mountain Inn and three other vacant and
deteriorating structures; and
WHEREAS, a prestigious hotel chain will establish a luxury hotel in the building if two
more floors of hotel rooms are permitted to be constructed; and
WHEREAS, East Square Developers have requested that their building be allowed two
additional stories of hotel rooms identical to the already permitted hotel room stories as a "Minor
Modification" of C-PZD 05-1610, pursuant to §166.06 (IX 1) of the Unified Development Code;
and
WHEREAS, East Square Developers have a right to appeal the Zoning and Development
Administrator's decision not to approve these two additional stories as a "Minor Modification",
and
WHEREAS, allowing two additional floors at this site on College Avenue near other
large downtown buildings is appropriate, will further enhance surrounding commercial and
office structures, and is compatible with all the reasons that justified the original request for a
sixteen story building.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby grants the
appeal and approves the developers' request to allow construction of two additional floors of
hotel rooms that will be identical in outward appearance to the other floors of hotel rooms so that
the total authorized height shall be eighteen stories as a Minor Modification of C-PZD 05-1610.
All other terms, conditions, requirements and plans for C-PZD 05-1610 shall remain unaltered
and in full force and effect.
(1)
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Amendments to the PZD Master Development
, Plan.
The Zoning and Development Administrator shall
determine whether an amendment request shall
be considered a minor modification or a PZD City
Council rezoning based on . the criteria
established herein. The applicant may appeal the
Zoning and Development Administrator's
decision to deny an administrative modification
within 10 working days of said decision to the
City Council, in writing.
(1) Minor Modification - Criteria
An amendment request may be considered
as an administrative minor modification if it
meets the following criteria:
(a) Building Setbacks —An increase or
decrease of the required building
setback when such modification is no
more than a 20% change to the
originally approved setback.
(b) Minimum Lot Size —An increase or
decrease of the minimum lot size when
such modification is no more than a
20% change to the originally approved
minimum lot size.
(c) Building Height -An increase or
decrease of the building height when
such modification is no more than a
20% change to the originally approved
maximum building height.
(d) Increased Number of Dwelling Units -An
increase of the number of dwelling units
in a planning area of 20% or less. Such
increase shall be accompanied by a
corresponding decrease in dwelling
units in another planning area located
within the same approved PZD Master
Development Plan.
(e) Decreased Number of Dwelling Units -A
decrease of the number of dwelling units
in a planning area up to 20%. Such
decrease shall result in a net loss of
dwelling units unless these units are
concurrently approved as an increase of
units in another planning area
(f) Commercial/Non-residential
Development Intensity An increase or
decrease of the square footage of
development intensity when such
mod cation is no more than a 20%
change to the originally approved
development intensity.
(g) Text Changes Insubstantial changes to
the text, as determined by the Zoning
(J)
and Development Administrator, to add
clarity, when such changes do not
change the commitments.
(h) Street Alignment -The Zoning and
Development Administrator upon review
. by the City Engineer shall determine
whether an insignificant shift in the
alignment of a street shall be considered
as a minor modification.
(2) City Council Approval. Rezoning through the
PZD process is required to modify any
aspect of the PZD which is not allowed
under the Minor Modification process. A
planning area within a Master Development
Plan may be amended separately from the
remainder of the approved master
development plan with City Council approval.
Phasing. Phasing of arPZD master development
plan may vary from the requirements of Chapter
166 of the UDC with regard to the expiration of
permits and plans only when phasing has been
identified, described, and approved as part of the
PZD master development plan process.
(K) Development standards conditions and review
guidelines
CD166 25
(1) Generally. The Planning Commission shall
consider a proposed PZD in light of the
purpose and intent as set forth in Chapter
161 Zoning Regulations, and the
development standards and review
guidelines set forth herein. Primary
emphasis shall be placed upon achieving
compatibility between the proposed
development and surrounding areas so as to
preserve • and enhance the neighborhood.
Proper planning shall involve a consideration
of tree preservation, water conservation,
preservation of natural site amenities, and
the protection of watercourses from erosion
and siltation. -The . Planning Commission
shall determine that specific development,
features including project density, building
locations, common usable open space, the
vehicular circulation system, parking areas,
screening and landscaping, and perimeter
treatment shall be combined in such a way
as to further the health, safety, amenity and
welfare of the community. To these ends, all
applications filed pursuant to this ordinance
shall be reviewed in accordance with the
same general review guidelines as those
utilized for zoning and subdivision
applications.
(2) Screening and landscaping. In order to
enhance the integrity and attractiveness of
the development, and when deemed
May 22, 2006
Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville Arkansas
RE• PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR
ADDITIONAL ROOMS, • EAST SQUARE PROJECT
Dear Jeremy,
Richard Alexander forwarded your letter of May 18, 2006. In that letter you addressed the
parking loads of an additional 53 rooms at the East Square/Mountam Inn project. In that letter
you requested further study of the parking loads required by ordinance. I have researched this
issue and concluded that we are required to provide 280.53 parking stalls (including the extra 53
hotel rooms) and we are providing 348 parking stalls. Please see the attached tables showing our
updated calculations. The major difference between the previous and current parking load
calculations is the addition of the Juvenile Courts Building and the Niblock Law Firm under
172.05 (A) (3) Building Footprint Waiver in C3 and C4 and the 25% reduction for accessory
uses in a hotel under 172.05 Table 3. Another difference is the revised number of residential
condominium bedrooms and the addition of the 53 hotel rooms.
These updated parking calculations demonstrate that our client is able to fulfill the parking
requirements of the additional rooms under the terms of the UDO, and therefore the parking
should not be a reason to limit the addition of the requested 53 rooms.
Please call, write, or e-mail me if you disagree with my interpretation of the parking requirements
for this project.
S ncerely,
Robert Sharp, Architect
page 1
East Square
Project Number 00001
Enclosures: East Square Development Use Type Parking Calculations, November 17, 2006
Mountain Inn (Demolished) Use Type Parking Calculations, November 17, 2006
East Square Development Use Type Parking Calculations, May 22, 2006
East Square Prior Structures (Demolished), May 22, 2006
cc:
•
Richard Alexander
John Nock
File
East Square
page 2 Pr41ect Number 00001
D o Orrn Aro t0lt A
iN pNwi O O $ N
2 M
Pt" w AT9 0 0 II 0
i N
C c v
O D A �� D Da A_ pm Nm AMA
-402 az
00O0utw 00w
c211
_entutttutt00 contort 66_
i _
8 v oA
bN
QL
A 4.0 0000 000 AA°
P
A
i
D
R. \\-S2.<
C
c ,c� ww0.0 twttuitwtt
rn A a0 0000 000 _N_
A
A_
A
A
0 t6its
0 it mmmo _m0 a 0
7�p W WM NAt_.tto Amm 0a0
rn
NI a w
-4 CD AJ 0 W 00 0-4-4 -4 a s ON N
4 aa tiut�it 61001 O1 jJ N� N O.0 a 0
M 5 wNttiS _w01 Oa0
D
A
c �t
m c 0u
rn m
rrn
r0•'
rn
1
A
D
2
A 0
• C
D
i
z
A N
i
0
O
2
O
A
D
0
0
crn
to K
la
`o cmzz §
($ -16k®
z
AVAILABLE PARKING IN DEMOLISHED GARAGE
1.3
-
ij-
00000'00
00000a00_
&% Q Q2
0� +t+Ul,a
MOUNTAIN INN (DEMOLISHED) USE TYPE PARKING CALCULATIONS
USE TYPE
CALCULATED
QUANTITY/5 F. RATIO FACTOR TOTAL PARKING
HOTEL ROOMS
RETAIL, IST FL.
ARCADE 3 FLS.
MEETING, 2ND FL.
BANQUET, 2ND FL.
RESTAURANT, 2ND
RED BUD CAFE
64 ROOMS
2,012
18,315
50k1 OGG.
2,205
FL. 1,261
1016
1:01
1:250
1:500.
1:04
1:50
1:100
1:100
REQUIRED PARKING TOTAL
AVAILABLE PARKING IN DEMOLISHED GARAGE
TOTAL SHORTAGE PER EXISTING REQUIREI"ENTS
NOTES:
1
1/250
1/300
1/4
1/50
1/100
1/100
64
8.1
61.25
12.61
44.1
12.61
I I
213.19
113
101
MEETING SPAGE5:0CGUPANGY FOR ASSMBELY BASED ON
UNCONCENTRATED' AT A I5 NET 2ND FLOOR 160 GROSS SF/I5
=50.61 OCCUPANCY
BANQUET SPACE: BASED ON 'DANCEHALL, BAR/TAVERN' CLASSIFICATION
DEMOLISHED PARKING GARAGE: 5 FLOORS PLUS BASEMENT AND
ROOFTOP; 113 PARKING STALLS ESTIMATED
•
EAST SQUARE DEVELOPMENT USE TYPE PARKING CALCULATIONS
USE TYPE
QUANTITY/S.F.
CALCULATED
RATIO FACTOR TOTAL PARKING
CONDOS, CENTER
RETAIL, CENTER ST.
HOTEL ROOMS
CONDOMINIUMS
BAR, 1$T FL.
RETAIL, IST FL'
MEETING, 2ND FL.
MEETING, 3RD, FL.
BALLROOM, 31W FL.
RESTAURANT, SW F
ST. 3
938
141 ROOMS
22 ROOMS
552
6,410
286 OGCP.
130 OCCP.
6,140
L. 6,215
SUBTOTAL
LESS PARKING SHORTAGE OF PRIOR STRUCTURE
REQUIRED PARKING SUBTOTAL
I/BR.
1:250
1:01
1/BR.
1:50
1:250
1:04
1:04
1:50
1:100
LESS 30%
TOTAL
PARKING STALLS PROVIDED
2
1/250
2
I/50
1/250
1/4
1/4
1/50
1,100
6
315
141
44
11
25.88
113
32.5
122.8
62.15
526.6
IPI
425.6
121.1
298
350
12 PARKING STALLS WILL BE DEDICATED TO SERVE TI -4E CONDOMINIUMS
IN THE BANK OF AMERICA.
NOTES:
RESTAURANT GROSS SF.
DINING
PRIVATE DINING
KITCI-IEN
SERVERY
3,108
858
1.208
441
6,215
MEETING SPACES: OCCUPANCY OR ASSEMBLY BASED UPON
UNCONCENTRATED' AT A 15 NET
2ND FLOOR 4,285 GROSS 5F,15-2855 OCCUPANCY
3RD FLOOR 1,950 GROSS SF,15-130 OCCUPANCY
BALLROOM AND LOBBY BAR: BASED ON 'DANCEHALL, BAR/TAVERN'
CLASSIFICATION; BAR 552 SF 15 COMPRISED OF OPEN SPACE
WITHIN THE HOTEL LOBBY
PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE: 1-1/2 FLOORS; 133,316 SF,
350 PARKING STALLS
¶yeteV1I1e
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
23 May 2006
Mr. Richard Alexander
East Square Development Co., LLC
11 N. West Avenue
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Re: Renaissance Tower/Mountain Inn Project
Dear Mr. Alexander,
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
I have reviewed the letter faxed to my office and received on May 22, 2006, requesting a review of
new parking calculations and a reconsideration of my decision to not administratively approve the
two additional stories in height to the proposed building. Please allow the following to serve as
answers to your requests.
Parking: I have spoken at length with your architect's office, Rob Sharp Architects, in reviewing the
parking calculations; while some uses have changed or been reorganized since the original PZD
approval due to more refinement in floor/construction plans, the ratios provided do indicate that the
348 parking spaces that are proposed to be provided on-site will meet the ordinance requirement,
utilizing the credit for pre-existing structures' parking deficiencies as allowed in the C-4 district, the
25% less ratio for hotel accessory uses and 30% less than that, as permitted by the Unified
Development Code, Ch. 172 Parking and Loading. It is my finding that the parking as presented
does meet the requirements of the Unified Development Code.
Administrative Approval: You are correct in your assertion that nothing in our current code would
limit the Zoning and Development Administrator's ability to grant the request to add two additional
floors to the 16 -story Renaissance Tower/Mountain Inn Project, for a total of eighteen floors. While
that decision could be appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council, the ordinance as it
exists allows for administrative approval of an increase in height to a building of 20% or less.
However, as mentioned in the previous letter, I feel that while this request does meet the criteria of a
"Minor Modification," in that it falls within the 20% change, I also find that this particular request is
more appropriately reviewed by the City Council. At the time this project was processed for
approval, the applicant chose to proceed forward under the rules of the previous Planned Zoning
District Ordinance. The previous ordinance did not allow for administrative approvals, therefore
K: lteremyl2006 CorrespondencelRenaissance Tower -Mountain !nn 2.doc
under that established criteria, the City Council approved a Planned Zoning District with the
understanding that nothing in terms of zoning or development would change without their revisiting
it. It is my finding that this particular change justifies a City Council resolution, as opposed to an
administrative approval.
I have just now (4pm) received a letter from Rob Sharp's office requesting this item be placed before
the City Council for their consideration.. I will be happy to forward the submitted materials to the
City Clerk's office in order to place this request on the City Council's agenda.
Please contact me if you have any further questions.
Best Regards,
46,
(Jerem'y
Director of Current Planning
1/4
•
K:L'eremy11006 Correspondence Renaissance Tower-Mounlain /nn 2.doc
May -22-06 04:34P Alexander & Gregory
501 521 1889 P.02
Alexander Merry -Ship & Alt
• Real Estate Group, Inc.
. Real Fume Sales Development
and Property Management
Richard Alexander, Resident Sherec Alt. Sr Vire President, Pnncipal Brinker
Rnb MerryShip. Sr. Vac President Jennifer Ellison. Rircinax Manager
May 22, 2006
VIA FACSIMILE TO (479) 575-8202
Jeremy C. Pate
Director of Current Planning
City of Fayetteville
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
RE: Renaissance' Power/Mountain Inn Project
Dear Mr. Pate:
Please allow this letter to serve as our fc)rrnal request for you to. reconsider your letter to
me of May [8, 2006 regarding our request for administrative approval of the addition of two
floors to the Renaissance Tower/Mountain iron project.
Upon receipt of you letter i discussed our parking situation with our architect, Roh Sharp
and asked him to work through the calculations concerning our current onsite parking. Please
find attached parking calculations for the project as prepared by Mr. Sharp's office. As you can
see from Mr. Sharp's calculations, our parking requirements arc 280.53 spaces utilizing the
current code and we are providing 348 spaces ensile.
With regard to your interpretation of the unified development code. 1 would respectfully
add that i have reviewed the code and there is nothing in the current code that would limit the
zoning and development administrator from granting our request since we are asking only for
two additional floors on a sixteen -floor project. The code specifically allows for the
development administrator to grant "minor modifications" including, specifically, an increase or
decrease in the :building height, which modification is no more that a 20% change in the
originally approved maximum building height. In this case, we are asking for a 13% change. I
have reviewed .the prior ordinance in effect at the time our project was approved and could find
nothing in that ordinance that prohibits the city council from adopting subsequent ordinances to
govern changes to approved projects such as the one requested nor is there anything in the new
ordinance that would prohibit the zoning or development administrator from applying existing
ordinances to a previously approved planned zoning development.
11 N. West Ave. Fayetteville, AR 77701 Phone 479.443.1313 Fax 479.521. 12(89
May -22-06 04:35P Alexander & Gregory
501 521 1889 P.03
Also, and as you know, we specifically did not request a waiver of the ninety -day
moratorium in order to allow what public comment might have come. 1 have personally been
aware of no negative comments from the city council despite the fact that our request was public
information widely known to council members in that it was the subject of several articles in
most of the local newspapers.
As far the changes recently enacted by the city council I. do not believe they affect our
project in that those changes as l understand it with respect to height limitations were specifically
limited to areas of C-3 zoning_ Our project, aside from being a planned zoning development, is
not in a C-3 zoning arca nor has it ever been in a C-3 zoning area. Tt has been, as long as 1 can
remember, a (:-4 zoning classification. Again, the city council specifically did not impose in the
past or recently any height limitations in C-4 commercial areas.
Of course, the timing of this request is very important to us. We are putting our
negotiations with our franchisor, Marriott, on hold, pending the outcome of this request. They
have strongly urged us to seek this change and any delay is of paramount concern to us. In
conclusion therefore 1 believe that we have more than adequate parking to satisfy our needs
assuming that we are approved for the additional two floors and in light of the fact that the
present ordinances specifically allow you to grant our request; 1 respectfully request that you
reconsider and do so. Ifyou are unable to grant our request because you do not believe you have
the authority. rather than deny our request we would ask that you forward our request to the city
council for approval pursuant to subsection (i)(2) of the code. Obviously, in light of the
information supplied f would also request that you night include your recommendation for
approval of our request to the city council. If, prior to making a ruling you should need any
other information or would like to meet with us regarding our request please do not hesitate to
contact me at the above number.
ItPA/jdc
Enclosure
Sincerely_,_ `
Richard P. Alexander
Ta!tile
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
18 May 2006
Mr. Richard Alexander
East Square Development Co., LLC
11 N. West Avenue
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Re: Renaissance Tower/Mountain Inn Project
Dear Mr. Alexander,
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
The Unified Development Code, under Section § 166.06 (I) Amendments to the PZD Master
Development Plan, gives the Zoning and Development Administrator the authority to determine
whether a requested amendment to an approved Planned Zoning District is to be considered a
minor modification or a rezoning to be considered by the City Council. There are certain criteria
identified under this section that the Zoning and Development Administrator may consider a
request to determine if an amendment can be approved administratively. If the amendment
request falls within the set criteria and the Zoning and Development Administrator approves the
request, no further action is needed. If the Zoning and Development Administrator does not
approve the request, the applicant may appeal the decision to deny an administrative modification
within ten (10) working days of the decision to the City Council, in writing.
The letter dated March 06, 2006 regarding this project requests an administrative approval of
.additional building height and square feet of nonresidential space to the East Square
Development/Mountain Inn project, above that which was approved by the City Council in C-
PZD 05-1610. The request is to increase the number of hotel rooms from 147 rooms to 200
rooms, and from a height of 16 stories to 18 stories. As noted in the letter, the increase in room
results in an increased parking need, which is not proposed to be added to this property; rather,
an informal proposal has been made to use an existing off-site 60 -space parking lot to
accommodate the additional parking demand generated by the additional hotel rooms.
At this time, I can not support your request for administrative approval. This project was
processed prior to the current Planned Zoning District ordinance being adopted. At that time, any
modification to an approved Planned Zoning District was required to return for consideration by
the City Council: Because amendments to this project were not anticipated when the City
K:VeremyI2006 Correspondence\Renais.sance Tower -Mountain Inn.doc