Loading...
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