Z-6865 Staff AnalysisJune 26, 2000
Item No.: 6
File No.: Z-6865
Owner: TC Real Estate Holdings, LLC/
James Williams, Architect
Address: 5301 Kavanaugh Blvd.
Descri tion: Lot "A", Dunaway and Fowler's
Replat of Lots 12 and 13, Block 2,
Englewood Addition
Zoned: O-3
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from
the area regulations of Section
36-281, the on-site parking
provisions of Section 36-502 and
the buffer requirements of Section
36-522.
Justification: The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Vacant lot
Proposed Use of Pr22ertY: Office Building
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
1. Harrison Street is classified'on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the corner of Harrison and Kavanaugh.
3. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master
Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned
development.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current
ADA standards. (ramp shown is not acceptable).
June 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
6. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant proposes to construct a new, 3 -story office
building on the 0-3 zoned lot located at 5301 Kavanaugh
Blvd. The lot is located at the southwest corner of
Kavanaugh Blvd. and N. Harrison Street. The lot is
currently vacant. The property was previously occupied by a
service station which had for the past several years been
used by a barber shop (Mackey's).
The applicant proposes to construct a 6,000 sq. ft. office
building with parking on the lower level and 2 floors of
offices above. The parking will be partially below grade,
reducing the height of the building above grade. A 6,000
sq. ft. office building requires 15 on-site parking spaces.
Seven spaces will be provided on-site, in the lower level
garage. The proposed building is to have side yard setbacks
of 2 feet on the east and 3 feet on the west. The Code
requires side yard setbacks of 10 feet in the 0-3 district.
The building has stairs in the front which come down to the
sidewalk and the main body of the building has a front yard
setback of 11.3 feet. The Code requires a front yard
setback of 25 feet. The stairs on the rear of the building
are set back from the rear property line 11 feet and the
main body of the building is set at 15 feet. The code
requires a rear yard setback of 15 feet. Zoning buffers of
6 feet in width are required on the east and south
perimeters. The applicant proposes buffer widths in these
areas of 2 feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances for this
innovative, in -fill development. Staff's support is based,
in great part , on the nature of the Heights neighborhood.
The venerable heights Commercial district, particularly the
development on Kavanaugh Blvd., is typified by reduced
setbacks and parking. Staff believes this proposed
brownstone -style development would be compatible with and
complement the neighborhood.
The 0-3 zoned properties adjacent to the west are occupied
by two, one-story office buildings. These adjacent
buildings have reduced side yard setbacks of 3-5 feet and
are built to within 1-2 feet of the front property line.
Other than for the front stairs, the applicant's building
2
June 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.
will be set back 9-10 feet further from the front property
line than the adjacent buildings. The reduced side yard
setback on the west, adjacent to the other office buildings,
is comparable to setbacks between non-residential
developments in the area and should have no impact on the
adjacent property. The previous building which existed on
this site had a side yard setback of 3 feet on the west.
The proposed 11.3 ft. front yard setback is very typical of
nonresidential development in the Heights. Most of the
older commercial buildings and some of the newer development
have less front yard setback and are, in some cases, built
to the front property line. The street appeal of this
project, with the stairway, landscaping and a fountain
feature, will help to assure its compatibility with the
neighborhood.
The properties across Harrison Street, to the east, are
zoned R-2 and are occupied by single family homes. The
reduced setback of 2 feet on this side is a potential issue
of concern and treatment of this perimeter of the site is of
utmost importance. If it were not for the requirement to
dedicate 5 feet of the property for additional right-of-way
for Harrison Street, the building would have a 7 ft. side
yard setback on the east. The building will sit 17± from
the curb of the street. The street adds to the separation
between this proposed building and the homes to the east.
The applicant has proposed to heavily landscape the eastern
perimeter of the site, including the right-of-way between
the sidewalk and the street, to help mitigate the visual
impact of the reduced setback. The building fagade is
designed to present a pleasant appearance to the east.
The building is proposed to conform to the required 15 foot
rear yard setback with the exception of a required stairway.
The stairs extend 4 feet into the required setback. The
stairs are unenclosed and should have a minimal impact on
the adjacent property. The property to the south is
occupied by a single family home which fronts onto Harrison
Street. An access driveway, a 6 foot privacy fence and the
proposed 2 foot buffer separate the proposed building from
the adjacent residential property. The applicant has
proposed to plant trees in a number twice that required by
the Code in the area between the fence and the driveway to
help mitigate the impact of the reduced buffer and building
(stairway) setback.
3
June 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
The issue of parking is a fairly difficult one to address in
the Heights in general and for this site in particular.
Very few businesses in the area have adequate on-site
parking, depending instead on available on -street parking
and a walking neighborhood populace. That concept seems to
work well for the commercial businesses; retail,
restaurants, etc. It is a different issue when addressing
An office use where employees might be expected to be on the
site 8 hours per day. This site is so small that it would
not be feasible to build an office building and to provide
surface parking. The applicant has taken the extraordinary
and expensive step of providing 7 parking spaces in the
lower level of the building itself. On street parking is
available on the south side of Kavanaugh Blvd. and on
Harrison Street directly adjacent to this property. That
on -street parking could provide space for 5-6 vehicles. The
total of on-site parking spaces and on -street parking
adjacent to the property appears to be 12-13 spaces. The
applicant is building the office building for his own use.
He owns a private investment company with a limited number
of employees and virtually no walk-in customer traffic.
The site was small to begin with, being only 5,000 sq. ft.
in area. The lot will be reduced to less than 4,500 sq. ft.
in area once the required right-of-way dedication is
accomplished on Harrison Street and at the corner. Staff
believes the applicant has designed a project which is
architecturally compatible with the neighborhood and which
does the best job possible of working within the constraints
of such a small site.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of
and parking variance subject
following conditions:
the requested setback, buffer
to compliance with the
1. Compliance with Public Works Comments
2. The eastern and southern perimeters of the site are to be
heavily landscaped as indicated on the architectural
rendering submitted by the applicant.
3. The building is to be designed in the style represented
in the architectural rendering submitted by the
applicant.
4
June 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 26, 2000)
James Williams and Geoffrey Tirman were present representing the
application. There were several objectors and one supporter
present. One letter of support, from Wesley Walls of 1915 N.
Harrison Street, had been received. Staff presented the item and
a recommendation of approval, subject to compliance with the
conditions noted in the "Staff Recommendation" above.
James Williams addressed the Board in support of his application.
He stated that he agreed with staff's recommendation and would
fully comply with the plans he submitted. Mr. Williams stated
that it was his intent to build a first class project. He stated
that the owner was a neighborhood resident who wanted his office
to be located near his home. Mr. Williams commented that the
owner had gone to great expense to provide on-site parking by
designing a building with garage parking.
Fred Gray asked what type of business was proposed for the site
and why there was no need for the required 15 parking spaces.
Geoffrey Tirman responded that his was a private money management
business with approximately 50 clients, 25 in the U.S. and 25
outside the country. He stated that he only had 5 clients in
Little Rock and never had more than 2-3 visitors per month come
to his office. Mr. Tirman stated that a total of 8 persons
worked in the office and 5 of those persons lived within walking
distance of the site. He stated most walk or bicycle to work and
that there might be 4 vehicles a day come to the office.
Fred Gray asked Mr. Tirman if he expected his business to expand.
Mr. Tirman responded that he stated his company in 1987 and since
that time the business had expanded only from 5 persons to the
current 8. He stated that he might hire one more analyst and one
more senior person.
Tim Hicks, of 1910 N. Harrison Street, spoke in opposition to the
item. He stated that he appreciated the applicant's efforts to
be sensitive to the neighborhood. Mr. Hicks stated that his
concern was allowing a 6,000 square foot office building to have
only 7 on-site parking spaces. He asked the Board to consider
future users of the building if this applicant moves on. Mr.
Hicks stated that he felt the building was too large for the
site.
In response to a question from Fred Gray, Mr. Hicks stated that
the typical neighborhood residence had two cars. He stated that
5
June 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.
one car was typically parked on the street and one was parked on
the driveway.
Wooly Simmons, of 1912 N. Harrison Street, spoke in opposition.
He stated that he was concerned about the lack of parking and the
height of the building. Mr. Simmons stated that he felt the
proposed building was "out of scale" with nearby homes and
businesses.
Robynn Zinser, owner of the Chiropractic Clinic at 5305,Kavanaugh
Blvd., spoke in opposition. Ms. Zinser voiced concerns about the
lack of parking and the reduced side yard setback adjacent to her
property. She stated that the building which previously occupied
the site also had a reduced side yard but it was much smaller and
less imposing. Ms. Zinser asked that the building be moved
further away from the west lot line. She also expressed concern
about possible damage that might occur to her building as a
result of excavation on the applicant's property. Ms. Zinser
acknowledged that her own building had setbacks less than those
required by Code but she stated that the impact is less since her
building is much smaller than that proposed by the applicant.
Ms. Zinser also expressed concern that the driveway on the south
side of the applicant's property be maintained as an access
easement to provide access to the parking lot on her property.
She also expressed concern about vehicles parking on Harrison
Street and traffic congestion in general.
In response to a question from Fred Gray, Ms. Zinser stated that
she had 4 parking spaces behind her building. She stated that
hers was a low traffic generating business and that she employed
only one person besides herself.
Ms. Zinser had previously expressed concerns about the loss of
light and privacy created by the proposed building. William Ruck
asked her to describe the type of windows she had on the east
side of her building. Ms. Zinser responded that the windows were
long and horizontal, along the top of the wall.
In response to a question from Fred Gray, Ms. Zinser stated that
she had an office, 2 patient rooms and a bathroom without windows
located along the east side of her building.
Mica Strother, of 1910 N. Harrison, spoke in opposition. She
stated that she felt the building was too large for the lot and
that it should be reduced in size, consequently reducing the
parking requirement. Ms. Strother commented that there would be
rl
June 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
rainy days when everyone would drive to the office, rather than
walk or bicycle as suggested by the applicant.
Scott Johnson, of 1919 N. Harrison, spoke in opposition. He
stated that he also was concerned about the lack of parking and
the size of the proposed structure.
Jim Pfeifer, Ms. Zinser's husband, stated that he endorsed the
previous comments by his wife and neighbors. He stated that
parking was too tight in the neighborhood.
Wesley Walls, of 1915 N. Harrison, spoke in support of the item.
Mr. Walls stated that he moved to the Heights because he liked
the mixed use neighborhood with offices, residences and
commercial uses in close proximity. Mr. Walls stated that he
thought the proposed building was architecturally pleasing and
would fit in the neighborhood. He stated that he felt the
concept of a single-tenant office building was attractive and the
proposed use should be considered as a good alternative to urban
sprawl. He stated that he appreciated urban infill development.
James Williams stated that there was a 10 foot access easement
across the rear of the property and the applicant would work with
his neighbors to address their concerns about continued access
off of Harrison Street (the site plan did not show an access
easement but the presence of the easement was confirmed by a
survey). Mr. Williams surmised that the high cost of land in The
Heights required this type of high quality development. He
stated that the applicant had tried to be sensitive to the
neighborhood in designing the building. In response to a
question, Mr. Williams stated that the west elevation of the
building was a mirror image of the east elevation, with the
exception of the ist floor which would have no windows.
Norm Floyd stated he was concerned about the radius of the
driveway entering the garage. He surmised that if it was too
difficult to use the garage, people would park on the street.
Mr. Williams responded that the garage door was wide enough to
address that concern. Mr. Williams stated that reducing the
building in size would eliminate the garage, since it would then
be too small to provide required parking and maneuvering room.
Geoffrey Tirman stated that the entry to the garage would be
gated and would only be open to allow access and egress. Mr.
Tirman stated that his was a good use of a small, difficult site.
He reiterated his contention that his business would generate
very little traffic. He stated that he was trying to do a
7
June 26, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
quality development and was attempting to address parking
concerns. In response to a question regarding building a 6,000
square foot structure for 8 employees, Mr. Tirman described other
use areas -in the building other than the offices for each
employee. He stated the building would also contain a conference
room, library, computer room, restroom, kitchen and breakroom.
Fred, Gray asked Mr. Tirman if he could reduce the building to one
story in height and 3,000 square feet in area, thus reducing the
parking requirement. Mr. Tirman responded that such a proposal
would cause all of his parking to be on -street and that small of
a building would not meet his needs.
William Ruck asked Mr. Tirman if he had approached the property
owner to the south about purchasing that lot for additional
parking. Mr. Tirman responded that he had not but that he had
approached the owner of the property adjacent to the west. Mr.
Tirman stated that the property to the west was cost prohibitive_
Gary Langlais stated that he felt the proposal was admirable
infill development that was actually increasing the parking
capacity in the area.
A motion was made to approve the requested variances subject to
compliance with the conditions recommended by staff. The motion
was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent.
8