Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6732-F Staff AnalysisNOVEMBER 25, 2013 ITEM NO_- 1 File No.: Z -6732-F Owner: H West, LLC Applicant: Frank Barksdale, AMR Architects Address: 215 E. Markham Street Description: South side of E. Markham Street, between Scott and Cumberland Streets Zoned: UU Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the easement provisions of Section 36- 11 and the parking design provisions of Section 36-511 in association with construction of a proposed parking deck. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Parking Lot Proposed Use of Property: Parking Deck STAFF REPORT 0 Public Works Issues: No Comments. Landscape and Buffer Issues_ Maintain street trees as per the UU zoning district requirements. C. Building Codes Comments: The required fire separation distance (building to property line) prescribed by the building code terminates at five (5) feet. Buildings are allowed to be closer than five (5) feet if they have properly constructed fire walls which provide the requisite one (1) hour fire resistance rating. When buildings are five (5) feet or more from the property line, the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself, only the projections such as eaves or overhangs. Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three (3) feet from the property line, and are prohibited when the exterior wall is less than three (3) feet from the line. There is no restriction on openings when the exterior wall is more than three (3) feet from the property line. Contact the City of Little Rock Building Codes at 371-4832 for additional details. NOVEMBER 25, 2013 ITEM NO.: 1 (CON'T.'. D. Utility Comments: AT&T — no objection to easement encroachment. This agreement is conditional upon the placement of two (2) handholes, (4'x6'x4') and a four inch (4") conduit connecting the handholes, specifically for AT&T use. These items are to be provided to insure a stable location for AT&T field technicians to complete necessary work, and will also provide a long term access and protection for telephone facilities going forward. Centerpoint Energy — no objection to easement encroachment. Central Arkansas Water — no objection to easement encroachment. Entergy — no objection to easement encroachment. Any Entergy facilities located on the site will require relocation at the expense of the owner. Little Rock Wastewater — no objection to easement encroachment. E. Staff Analysis_ The UU zoned property at 215 E. Markham Street is currently occupied by a paved parking lot, located between the Heritage West and Stone Ward buildings. The existing parking lot contains approximately 65 spaces and serves both buildings. Pedestrian use/landscaped areas are located between the parking lot and both buildings. The property contains a 20 foot wide utility easement along the south property line which was a platted alley right-of-way that was abandoned a number of years ago. The applicant proposes to construct a two (2) level parking deck on the property, as noted on the attached site plan. The parking deck will occupy essentially the same area as the existing parking lot. The new deck will contain 144 parking spaces, as follows: 9'— 0" spaces = 44 8'— 0" HC spaces = 5 8'— 6" spaces = 56 8'-0"spaces=39 total spaces = 144 An artist rendering of the proposed parking deck has also been provided for Board review. The deck will have a height not exceeding 15 feet. With construction of the new parking deck, the pedestrian use/landscaped areas between the deck and the buildings to the east and west will be maintained and improved with new landscape materials. The deck will continue to serve both buildings. NOVEMBER 25, 2013 ITEM NO.: 1 CON'T. Section 36-11(f) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that proposed easement encroachments be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Section 36-511(a) allows up to 20 percent of the total spaces within a parking deck to be compact spaces, with a width reduced to eight (8) feet six (6) inches. The standard width for a parking space is nine (9) feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the parking deck to encroach into the 20 foot wide easement along the south property line, more than 20 percent of the overall spaces to be compact spaces, and some of the compact spaces to be eight (8) feet in width. Staff is supportive of the requested variances associated with the construction of a new parking deck. Staff views the request as reasonable. All of the public utility companies agree to the encroachment into the utility easement along the south property line. With respect to the parking space widths proposed, the applicant has provided information from a parking consultant which notes that many city jurisdictions allow eight (8) foot wide compact spaces. The parking deck which is proposed does not fulfill an ordinance parking requirement to serve a specific use. Uses within the UU zoning district are not required to have parking. The parking deck will be a private deck and will provide additional parking to serve the existing office buildings to the east and west. Therefore, staff has no issue with the size and number of compact spaces proposed. Staff believes construction of the new parking deck as proposed will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. F. Staff Analysis_ Staff recommends approval of the requested easement and parking stall number/size variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Landscape and Buffer requirements as noted in paragraph B. of the staff report. 2. Compliance with the Building Code requirements as noted in paragraph C. of the staff report. 3. Compliance with the Utility comments as noted in paragraph D. of the staff report. 4. All compact parking spaces must be properly signed. 5. Compliance with all UU zoning district development requirements. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (November 25, 2013) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application was approved.