To: Mark Hafner, City Manager
From: Michele Berry, Senior Planner
Subject:
Title
Consider a resolution approving a Site Plan with variances for a proposed 6,124 square-foot retail and restaurant building, located on a 0.517-acre tract of land, being Lots 1-3, 16 and the west half of 15, Block 9, Original Town of Keller, located on the southeast corner of the South Main Street (U.S. Hwy 377) and Vine Street intersection at 251 South Main Street, 112 East Vine Street and 120 East Vine Street, and zoned OTK (Old Town Keller). James Mason, owner. Structured Building Group, applicant/developer. Lambdin Architects, Architect (SP-16-0024 and UDC-17-0012)
Action Requested:
Consider a resolution approving a site plan for a 6,124 square-foot retail and restaurant building.
Zoning:
OTK (Old Town Keller)
Background:
The property was platted around 1918 as part of the Original Town of Keller. The original plat created four and a half (4.5) lots that are now the subject property.
The property is currently vacant although there is pavement remaining from a previous development.
The zoning for this property was established as part of a City-wide rezoning effort on December 15, 1992. The Old Town Keller Overlay District was added to this property back in September 3, 2002 by Ordinance No. 1115. The Overlay Zoning District was converted to the “Old Town Keller” zoning district in 2015.
Analysis:
The applicant is proposing a new 6,124 square-foot retail structure in Main Street Subdistrict of the OTK (Old Town Keller) zoning district. Retail and restaurant are permitted uses within the OTK zoning district. Design review of the Site Plan is required in the OTK zoning district to “ensure that the development within the district is in conformance with design guidelines for OTK and the proposed development is architecturally compatible with the historic character of OTK”. The applicant has met the requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC) for this development with the exception of six (6) variances where Staff is sending this to Planning and Zoning and City Council for design review; setbacks, patio location, building height, landscaping, and parking.
Site Layout:
The OTK zoning district front yard requirements state,
“The character of Old Town calls for ‘Build-to’ lines, reducing the setback from the street as much as possible while still accommodating the landscape buffer, sidewalk, and necessary easements. This is typically fifteen feet (15’), however may vary from case-to-case to achieve the build-to scenario.”
The applicant is proposing a fifteen-foot (15’) setback. However, at this intersection, all other corners are developed with buildings at the property lines. It is staff’s professional opinion that the building setback should be reduced at this location in order to be compatible with the adjacent historical development. Pictures of the intersection are included in the “Staff attachment”.
Variance Request
1. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building setback to be fifteen feet (15’) when the build-to scenario in this location would generally merit a reduced setback.
The applicant is proposing a patio area for the restaurant that is located at the hard corner, right at the Main Street (U.S. HWY 377) and Vine Street Intersection. In establishing the Main Street Subdistrict, Section 8.03 (Q.1b.2) of the UDC states,
“This Subdistrict is characterized by continuous storefronts along the streets with deep, long, and narrow shops. Buildings are typically one or two stories in height with flat roofs and display a historic mercantile character.”
It is staff’s opinion that the patio does not meet the character of the Main Street sub-district at this location and will disrupt the character of buildings being close to the street. The patio in combination with the fifteen-foot (15’) setback will make this development markedly different from the structures on the adjacent three corners of this intersection.
Variance Request
2. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the patio at the front of the building, interrupting the continuous storefront on the street.
Architecture:
Building elevations and a color rendering of the proposed building are enclosed in Exhibit “A”. The proposed design and colors do meet the intent of the district that, “Buildings are typically one or two stories in height with flat roofs and display a historic mercantile character.” Brick is the primary material proposed and the elevations have a clear pattern of windows, doors and articulation.
Section 8.03 (Q.5.a.2) states,
“All new buildings and newly renovated buildings shall have a defined base, a clear pattern of openings and surface features, a recognizable entry, an interesting roofline, and appropriate building materials. Aspects of the architecture of the early 1900’s such as materials, colors, window types, cornices, and overall proportions should be reflected in the overall facade composition. Blank walls are prohibited on the front facade and on any facades that may face side streets. As much storefront glass as possible must be incorporated into the facade along with projecting elements and recesses in the facade to define individual tenants within the building. Materials and architectural elements of the front facade shall be carried on all sides of the building.”
Section 8.03(Q.3.d) of the UDC states “New construction shall have a minimum height of twenty feet (20’) to maintain a well-defined street space.” The maximum height of the proposed building is eighteen feet and nine inches (18’-9”). The proposed sixteen-foot (16’) height is human scale and the building is well-portioned. The proposed height of sixteen feet (16’) makes this structure taller than many of the historic one-story buildings along South Main Street.
However, staff is concerned that the lower building height combined with the proposed setbacks will not meet the intent of the code in maintain the well-defined street space.
Variance Request
3. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building height to be less than twenty feet (20’) for a new single-story building.
Lighting:
Decorative street lights meeting the Old Town Keller Overlay standards are provided every sixty feet (60’). This is not shown on the site plan or photometric plan but is required. To date, no variance to this has been requested.
Sidewalks and Trails:
A five-foot (5’) wide brick sidewalk along S. Main Street will be installed in accordance with the UDC. Along Vine Street, a concrete sidewalk with a two-foot (2’) row of brick pavers every ten feet (10’) will be installed per the UDC.
Parking:
Section 8.03 (Q.5.f) states in Old Town parking should be at the rear of the building but Council can consider parking at the side on a case-by-case basis. It goes on to state, “The parking requirements of this Code shall be enforced in new developments to the extent possible. Developers must share in the cost of remote parking lots if all required parking cannot be provided on site.”
Section 8.07 of the UDC states that the number of required parking spaces is calculated based on one (1) parking space for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor space for retail or personal service establishments and one (1) parking space for each one hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor space for restaurants. In total, thirty-eight (38) parking spaces are required for this development, not including handicapped parking spaces.
In total, thirty-seven (37) parking spaces are provided; twenty two (22) off-street parking spaces at the side and rear of the building, thirteen (13) on-street parking spaces, and two (2) on-street handicapped parking spaces.
The proposal is three (3) parking spaces short with parking at the side of the building and no additional room for parking on-site (Handicap spaces do not count towards minimum required parking spaces). The proposed uses of the building will likely have off-set peak hours which will reduce the total number needed. In addition, the restaurant area patio was included in the parking calculations which will only be used during pleasant weather.
Variance Request
4. The applicant is requesting parking on the side of the building.
5. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a parking reduction to the thirty-seven (37) parking spaces proposed.
Tree Preservation:
A tree survey was prepared by the applicant to show all existing quality protected trees on site. The tree survey and preservation plan is included in Exhibit “A”. No trees on- site are required to be preserved, though an Elm tree in the Right-of-Way maybe saved through careful protection measures during construction.
Landscaping:
Landscaping standards for the OTK zoning district are listed in Section 8.03 (Q.5.b) of the UDC. The applicant is providing the required street trees along Main Street and planting ornamental trees along Vine Street due to the existing Utility Lines. A five-foot (5’) foundation planting circles around the building.
The applicant is proposing to reconfigure the landscape island in the Vine Street Right-of-Way at the corner of Main Street. They are proposing to remove the five (5) existing crepe myrtles and not replant a canopy tree. They cite concerns about visibility. However, Section 8.08 (I) allows for trees in the visibility area provided they are trimmed such that there are no branches between three feet (3’) and six feet (6’) in height.
Variance Request
6. A variance is requested to not plant a tree in the landscape island in the Vine Street Right-of-Way near the intersection with South Main Street.
Existing Roadway Access:
The development will be served by one (1) point of access on Vine Street. In addition, the applicant will be constructing public parking spaces on Vine Street. Section 5.07 (B.7) states that driveways for non-residential uses should have a minimum ten-foot (10’) wide band of brick/concrete pavers or stamped concrete at the entry drives and crosswalks. The band of brick/concrete pavers or stamped concrete shall be centered with the sidewalk. This is shown on the proposed site plan.
Drainage & Utilities:
The applicant has submitted preliminary drainage and utility plans for this development and has met the requirements of the UDC for this development.
Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses:
North: Commercial Property, zoned OTK
South: Car repair business, zoned OTK
East: Montessori School, zoned OTK
West: Commercial property, zoned OTK
Variances Requested:
There are six (6) requested variances with this site plan application:
1. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building setback to be fifteen feet (15’) when the build-to scenario in this location would generally merit a smaller setback.
2. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the patio at the front of the building, interrupting the continuous storefront on the street.
3. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building height to be less than twenty feet (20’) for a new single story building.
4. The applicant is requesting parking on the side of the building.
5. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a parking reduction to the thirty-seven (37) parking spaces proposed.
6. A variance is request to not plant a tree in the landscape island in the Vine Street Right-of-Way near the intersection with South Main Street.
Summary:
Section 2.07(A.2) of the UDC, lists criteria for approval of a variance. Staff’s comments are added in bold italics.
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that the strict application of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
There are no special circumstances that would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land if these variances were not granted.
b. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to other properties in the area.
None of the proposed variances would be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare.
c. That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other lands in the area in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
None of the proposed variances would prevent orderly subdivision.
d. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a violation of any other valid ordinance of the City of Keller.
None of the proposed variances would violate other valid ordinances of the City.
e. That strict compliance with the regulations, and/or that the purpose of the regulations will be served to a greater extent by the alternative proposal.
While Staff supports many aspects of the project, it could be made better by complying with the regulations. The proposed variance to the setback, patio location, and building height break from the desired streetscape and would be incongruous in the immediate area. The tree in the landscape island would provide shade from the western sun without creating visibility concerns. The only variances that do better meet the intent of the regulations are the requests for reduced parking and parking at the side of the building. It is the intent in OTK to reduce visible parking while still providing shared parking within City street R.O.W. In this case, there is a proposed mix of uses whose peak parking demands will be offset and no other location for additional parking.
Citizen Input:
A Site Plan application, even with variances, does not require a public hearing, so no public hearing notifications were sent out to the surrounding property owners for this request. There has been no response from the public to this application. The public will have an opportunity to speak on this agenda item at the “Persons To Be Heard”.
Professional Opinion:
It is the professional opinion of staff to not support the first three and last variances:
1. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building setback to be fifteen feet (15’) when the build-to scenario in this location would general merit a smaller setback.
2. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the patio at the front of the building, interrupting the continuous storefront on the street.
3. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the building height to be less than twenty feet (20’) for a new single-story building.
6. A variance is requested to not plant a tree in the landscape island in the Vine Street Right-of-Way near the intersection with South Main Street.
Staff does support the following two (2) variances:
4. The applicant is requesting parking on the side of the building.
5. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a parking reduction to the thirty-seven (37) parking spaces proposed.
Staff also recommends the following conditions:
7. The condition that the EIFS or stucco shown on the building elevation be changed to brick or stone.
8. The condition that antique streetlights matching the existing lights be added along Main Street and that antique streetlights be added along Vine Street, per the Old Town Keller standards.
Board Review:
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at their regular meeting on June 26, 2017 and voted 4-0 to APPROVE with the following variances and conditions:
1. The variance request to allow the building setback to be fifteen feet (15’) when the build-to scenario in this location would general merit a smaller setback shall be allowed.
2. The variance request to allow the patio at the front of the building, interrupting the continuous storefront on the street shall be allowed.
3. The variance request to allow the building height to be less than twenty feet (20’) for a new single story building shall be allowed.
4. The variance request to allow parking on the side of the building shall be allowed.
5. The variance request to allow a parking reduction to the thirty-seven (37) parking spaces proposed shall be allowed.
7. The condition that the EIFS or stucco shown on the building elevation shall be changed to brick or stone.
8. The condition that antique streetlights matching the existing lights shall be added along Main Street and that antique streetlights be added along Vine Street, per the Old Town Keller standards.
Variance No. 6 to waive the tree within the landscape island on Vine Street was not recommended by the P & Z Commission.
Alternatives:
The City Council has the following options when considering a Site Plan with variances:
- Approve as submitted (with requested variances)
- Approve with modified or additional condition(s)
- Tabling the agenda item to a specific date with clarification of intent and purpose
- Deny