Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jason Schubert Report Date: November 22, 2006 Email: jschubert@cstx.gov Meeting Date: December 5, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500234 APPLICANT: Greg Taggart REQUEST: Parking Variance and Drive-aisle Width Variances LOCATION: 2101 Harvey Mitchell Pkwy S PURPOSE: To validate nonconforming off-street parking standards as per lender requirement. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Agent for owner Property Owner: Glenn A. Wyant, Managing Partner Applicable UDO Article 7, Section 2.1, Number of Off-Street Parking Ordinance Section: Spaces Required and Article 7, Section 2.C, Dimensions and Access PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use • Subject Property: R-6, High Density Multi-Family, and C-1, General Commercial • North: R-1, Single-Family Residential • East: C-2, Commercial Industrial, and R-6, High Density Multi- Family • South: Across Texas Avenue: C-1, General Commercial and R-4, Multi-Family • West: Across Southwood Drive: C-1, General Commercial and R- 6, High Density Multi-Family Frontage: This property has frontage on Harvey Mitchell Parkway Frontage Road (1,020 feet), Southwood Drive (600 feet) and Valley View Drive (980 feet on both sides). Access: The subject property has access from the Harvey Mitchell Parkway Frontage Road, Valley View Drive, and Southwood Drive. Topography & Vegetation: The property slopes slightly to the north and has mature trees. Flood Plain: None VARIANCE INFORMATION Background: The subject property is currently developed as the Doux Chene Apartments, having begun construction in 1973. An approved site plan verifying that the site was built in compliance with the regulations of the time is not available. In June 1974, a 0.595 acre area of the complex was rezoned to C-1, General Commercial, though that area has been developed as apartment buildings. Since the complex was built, the City's parking and access requirements have been amended such that the site is nonconforming to current standards. The apartment complex has provided 623 parking spaces for off-street parking. To meet current parking requirements, 708 spaces would be required for a multi- family complex that contains 232 one-bedroom units, 112 two-bedroom units, and 8 three-bedroom units. As a result, the applicant is requesting a variance of 85 parking spaces to nullify this deficiency. The applicant is also seeking to reduce the required drive aisle widths for 5 non-fire lane drive aisles. The drive aisles are labeled on the provided as-built survey and are as follows: 1) A variance of 7 feet for Drive Aisle 1, reducing the width of a two-way aisle with 45 degree parking from 20 feet to 13 feet. 2) A variance of 8 feet for Drive Aisle 2, reducing the width of a two-way aisle with 90 degree parking from 23 feet to 15 feet. 3) A variance of 3 feet for Drive Aisle 3, reducing the width of a two-way aisle with 90 degree parking from 23 feet to 20 feet. 4) A variance of 3 feet for Drive Aisle 4, reducing the width of a two-way aisle with 90 degree parking from 23 feet to 20 feet. 5) A variance of 3 feet for Drive Aisle 5, reducing the width of a two-way aisle with 90 degree parking from 23 feet to 20 feet. The applicant is seeking the variances as a cure to satisfy a refinancing underwriter requirement that the site be brought into conformity. ANALYSIS Special Conditions: The applicant has identified the current parking layout as existing for about 30 years. Additionally, Valley View Drive bisects the complex and according to the applicant, provides approximately 60 to 65 on-street parking spaces. Hardships: The owner is seeking to fulfill their mortgage underwriter's requirement to have the site brought into conformity within six months or risk potential revocation of the loan. If revoked, the applicant states the hardship of inability to acquire another mortgage and could severely impact the marketability of the site. Alternatives: The applicant has identified two alternatives for the required number of parking spaces. The first is to demolish the number of units necessary to reduce the amount of required parking on the site to the amount currently provided. A second alternative would be to demolish the two tennis courts, basketball court, pool area and a few units to build the required number of parking spaces on the site. Although the applicant has not provided alternatives for the drive aisle widths, these could be brought into compliance if the parking areas were reconfigured or if the site was redeveloped. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variances. The circumstances of this site are not unique, in that all apartment complexes built under previous ordinances may also be nonconforming. Perhaps on-street parking along Valley View Drive has helped alleviate the parking deficiency, though neighboring residents have responded that it also causes a safety hazard. In addition, since Valley View Drive is a public street, the City at some future time may reduce or eliminate on-street parking in this location. Furthermore, even if these variances are granted, the site will still be considered nonconforming in a similar fashion due to other items such as noncompliant parking islands, drive access, and landscaping. Finally, financial considerations may not be considered grounds for a variance. SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: The purpose of the off-street parking standards is to establish the guidelines for off-street parking spaces consistent with the proposed land use to: 1. Eliminate the occurrence of non-resident on-street parking in adjoining neighborhoods; 2. Avoid the traffic congestion and public safety hazards caused by a failure to provide such parking spaces; and 3. Expedite the movement of traffic on public thoroughfares in a safe manner, thus increasing the carrying capacity of the streets and reducing the amount of land required for streets, thereby lowering the cost to both the property owner and the City. Similar Requests: None identified. Number of Property Owners Notified: 28 Responses Received: At the time of the staff report, ten responses were received. Six were inquiries and another recommended approval of the variances on the basis that a denial may require additional parking spaces to be built, potentially causing more noise and traffic. The remaining three recommended denial on the basis that more off-street parking is needed to reduce the amount of on-street parking, thus increasing safety along Valley View Drive, particularly at the intersection with Angelina Circle. ATTACHMENTS 1. Small Area Map and Aerial Map 2. Application 3. As-built Survey (provided in packet)