Don Haddix
03-21-2008, 12:59 PM
It appears the rezoning from GC to LUC for two motel/hotels will proceed in spite of the fact that occupancy rates for our existing facilities has been less than 40%, Dolce has gone to a 24/7 facility, thus adding well over 100 rooms to available daily inventory and a new three story Hampton in Fayetteville will be soon be opened.
So, what were the arguments for?
1. Attract new travelers to stay in the facilities. But do people travel to PTC to stay in a motel/hotel because of the motel/hotel? No.
2. They will attract conventions, etc., because they will be nicer than what is already here. But Dolce and Wyndham have tennis centers and swimming pool in mature park like settings and are convention centers. The new ones do not have pools or courts and do not even even claim to be convention centers. They only list have a normal motel meeting room, which is a huge difference fro being a convention center. And more attractive?
3. They need to be three story to compete with existing three story facilities. But, our only current non two story facilities are Dolce, Wyndhall and Holiday Inn, all built in wooded or tree screened area, which in addition to point 2 the convention centers have around 40 more rooms than even allowing three stories would allow. So this is comparing apples to oranges.
4. Two story would turn into the issues we had at the old Days Inn. But could not building these potentially turn any of the four older two story facilities into such by that theory?
5. They surely did their research to justify building. Well, besides the realities already stated, research probably actually showed they could take away occupancy from already existing older facilities in less desirable locations, not actually add occupants to PTC.
6. We already have some new 60' buildings. But that is exactly why we capped GC to 35', to stop from getting more. Because something has happened does not justify allowing it to continue.
In addition, we have no hotel/motel facilities above two stories visible from a road, street or highway. All extra heights are not only in wooded areas where the trees are taller than the building, but the extra floors are on land with lower elevations from the main structure.
The arguments simply don't fit the reality.
My personal opinion is this is a serious mistake. It grows PTC vertically and tells developers if you want more than 35 feet, Council is willing to spot zone it for you if you just create a situation of either/or that would not be risked if known it would be turned down.
On the topic of spot zoning. The effort was made to deny it is spot zoning. The claim was it was more like an exception, as in Big Box exception. But fact is the zoning changes from GC to LUC-22. That is spot zoning, not an exception within a zoning.
So, what were the arguments for?
1. Attract new travelers to stay in the facilities. But do people travel to PTC to stay in a motel/hotel because of the motel/hotel? No.
2. They will attract conventions, etc., because they will be nicer than what is already here. But Dolce and Wyndham have tennis centers and swimming pool in mature park like settings and are convention centers. The new ones do not have pools or courts and do not even even claim to be convention centers. They only list have a normal motel meeting room, which is a huge difference fro being a convention center. And more attractive?
3. They need to be three story to compete with existing three story facilities. But, our only current non two story facilities are Dolce, Wyndhall and Holiday Inn, all built in wooded or tree screened area, which in addition to point 2 the convention centers have around 40 more rooms than even allowing three stories would allow. So this is comparing apples to oranges.
4. Two story would turn into the issues we had at the old Days Inn. But could not building these potentially turn any of the four older two story facilities into such by that theory?
5. They surely did their research to justify building. Well, besides the realities already stated, research probably actually showed they could take away occupancy from already existing older facilities in less desirable locations, not actually add occupants to PTC.
6. We already have some new 60' buildings. But that is exactly why we capped GC to 35', to stop from getting more. Because something has happened does not justify allowing it to continue.
In addition, we have no hotel/motel facilities above two stories visible from a road, street or highway. All extra heights are not only in wooded areas where the trees are taller than the building, but the extra floors are on land with lower elevations from the main structure.
The arguments simply don't fit the reality.
My personal opinion is this is a serious mistake. It grows PTC vertically and tells developers if you want more than 35 feet, Council is willing to spot zone it for you if you just create a situation of either/or that would not be risked if known it would be turned down.
On the topic of spot zoning. The effort was made to deny it is spot zoning. The claim was it was more like an exception, as in Big Box exception. But fact is the zoning changes from GC to LUC-22. That is spot zoning, not an exception within a zoning.