Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8121-A Staff AnalysisNOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 File No.: Z-8121 -A Owner: J.C. Halsell Applicant: Todd Rogers, PBS & J Address: 6201 W. Markham Street Description: Lot 2, Ruebel's Second Subdivision Zoned: C-3 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the parking provisions of Section 36-390 (Midtown Overlay) to permit parking in the front setback and to permit more parking spaces than the maximum number allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Building Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments B. Staff Analysis: The C-3 zoned property at 6201 W. Markham Street is occupied by a one-story commercial building within the south half of the property. There are two (2) driveways from West Markham Street which serve as access. There is paved parking and drives on all sides of the building. There is also a 40 foot front platted building line along the West Markham Street frontage. The property is located within the City's Midtown Overlay District. The property owner is planning to remove the existing commercial building from the property and construct a new Chick-Fil-A restaurant. The new restaurant NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 building will be located within the north half of the property with one (1) entry drive at the northeast corner of the property. Paved parking will be located along the east, west and south sides of the proposed building. With the proposed restaurant development, one (1) main ground -mounted sign (106 square feet) will be located within a landscaped area along the front (north) property line. There will be three (3) 33.68 square foot wall signs on the building. These wall signs will be located on the north, east and west sides of the building, as noted on the attached site plan. There will also be a 72 square foot wall sign at the northwest corner of the building, along the top band of the building. This sign is located on the north side of the building, wrapping around to a portion of the west fagade. On October 30, 2006, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow wall signs without direct street frontage on the east and west facades of the proposed restaurant building. The applicant is back before the Board of Adjustment requesting two (2) variances from Section 36-390 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the Midtown Overlay District regulations. Ordinance No. 19,004 passed by the City Board on December 2, 2003, established the Midtown Overlay District requirements. The overlay regulates development and redevelopment in an area bounded by 1-630 on the south, Father Tribou to the north, McKinley Street on the west and University Avenue on the east; and an area bounded by Lee Avenue on the north, West Markham Street on the south, University Avenue on the west to Filmore Street on the east. The first variance requested is from Section 36-390(a). This section allows the maximum number of parking spaces to be the minimum number required by Section 36-502 of the Code. The minimum number of parking spaces required for the proposed restaurant is 37. The applicant is proposing 52 spaces for the restaurant. Therefore, the applicant is requesting the variance to allow an increased number of parking spaces. The second variance is from Section 36-390(c). This section requires that surface parking be limited to the side and rear of structures, and that no parking be allowed in the front yard setback. As noted earlier, there is a 40 foot front platted building line for this property. The site plan submitted shows one (1) parking space and portions of two (2) other parking spaces located between the platted building line and front (north) property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow these three (3) spaces to remain. Staff does not support the requested variances from the Midtown Overlay District requirements. Staff believes the proposed development does not completely comply with the purpose and intent of the newly established Midtown Overlay District Ordinance. The site should be designed to compliment and encourage pedestrian use. Staff believes the overall number of parking spaces should be NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T. reduced, including elimination of the spaces within the front building setback area. Staff believes the areas of additional parking could be used for additional landscaping or an area of outdoor dining. Staff feels the proposed parking plan as proposed could have an adverse impact on future redevelopments in the Midtown Overlay area. If the site plan is revised to comply with the parking standards, all other requirements of the overlay must be met, including utilities (underground) and lighting. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances from the Midtown Overlay District requirements. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 2006) Blake Goodman, Adam Carr, Jeff Yates, J.C. Halsell, John Flake and Hank Kelley were present, representing the application. There were two (2) objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Jeff Yates addressed the Board in support of the application and explained the property ownership. Blake Goodman addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented a revised site plan to the Board. He explained that the revised site plan eliminated the three (3) parking spaces between the front building line and the front property line, reducing the total number of parking spaces to 49. He explained that the revised plan eliminated one of the variances and reduced the other. He also explained that the elevation of the property would make it very difficult to combine the property with adjacent property for future development. Craig Berry, Chairman of the Midtown Advisory Board, addressed the Board in opposition. He discussed and quoted from the purpose and intent section of the Midtown Overlay District Ordinance. He discussed the proposed use and the parking needs in an urban setting. He explained that the overlay ordinance was use neutral and addressed design issues. Chairman Francis explained that there was a problem with the topography of the property and connectivity with adjacent property. He asked what could be done to preserve the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Berry explained that there were problems with this specific property and the design issues of the ordinance. City Director Stacy Hurst also addressed the Board in opposition. She explained that there was a great amount of effort involved in the passage of the Midtown NOVEMBER 27, 2006 ITEM NO.: 9 (CON'T Overlay District Ordinance. She explained how the overlay encouraged pedestrian use and connectivity between the properties in the district. She encouraged the Board to support the Midtown Board's efforts. Chairman Francis explained that some of the parking spaces could be removed with space left for future connectivity between the adjacent properties. The issue of connectivity was further discussed. Vice -Chairman Burruss noted that the proposed plan for the property greatly increased the percentage of the property which would be landscaped. He asked if the applicant would be willing to further reduce the total number of parking spaces. Mr. Goodman stated that the parking could not be reduced any further. He explained that the proposed driveway was aligned with the Park Plaza driveway to the north. He explained that the proposed building was designed to meet the overlay requirements. Fletcher Hanson asked how a reduction in parking helped the overlay design issues. Mr. Berry explained that if the applicant were willing to reduce the number of parking spaces, they should meet with the Planning Staff to redesign the site plan. Chairman Francis asked if there was some middle ground with respect to the number of parking spaces. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, noted that the plan should be redesigned to meet all ordinance requirements and explained making reference to the River Market and Highway 10 Overlay Districts. John Flake addressed the Board in support. He explained that the elevation of the properties to the east and west prohibited a joint development. Director Hurst explained how the proposed redevelopment did not meet the design standards of the overlay ordinance. There was a motion to approve the application as revised by the applicant at the public hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay and 1 open position. The revised application was approved.