APPLICATION NUMBER 5189 A REQUEST FOR PARKING SURFACE, PARKING RATIO, ACCESS/MANEUVERING AREA AND LANDSCAPING AND TREE PLANTING VARIANCES TO CHANGE THE USE OF AN EXISTING 1,410 SQUARE FOOT DWELLING TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICES WITH CRUSHED STONE PARKING, THREE (3) PARKING SPACES, AND EIGHT- FOOT DRIVEWAY WITH MANUEVERING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THREE (3) CREPE MYRTLE TREES; ASPHALT, CONCRETE, OR AN ALTERNATIVE PAVING SURFACE, WITH FIVE (5) PARKING SPACES AND A 24-FOOT DRIVEWAY FOR TWO-WAY ACCESS WITH ALL MANUEVERING ON- SITE, AND A TOTAL OF TEN (10) TREES, FIVE (5) OVERSTORY AND FIVE (5) UNDERSTORY ARE REQUIRED IN A B-1, BUFFER BUSINESS DISTRICT. LOCATED AT 1057 DAUPHIN STREET (South side of Dauphin Street, 106 + West of South Pine Street) APPLICANT CHRIS BOWEN BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT JULY 2003
ANALYSIS APPLICATION 5189 Date: July 14, 2003 The applicant is requesting Parking Surface, Parking Ratio, Access/Maneuvering Area and Landscaping/Tree Planting Variances to change the use of an existing 1,410 square foot dwelling to professional offices with crushed stone parking, three (3) parking spaces, an eight-foot wide driveway with maneuvering onto adjacent property and three (3) crepe myrtle trees; asphalt, concrete or an alternative paving surface, with five (5) parking spaces and a 24-foot wide driveway for two-way access with all maneuvering on-site, and a total of ten (10) trees, five (5) overstory and five (5) understory are required in a B-1, Buffer Business District. The applicant states that the property was zoned residential until 1967 when the property was changed in a blanket rezoning to B-1 and that the property can not be reconfigured to comply with any of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The site has been used as residential until recently when a tenant tried to obtain a business license, which was denied. The applicant did not submit any documentation illustrating the site has ever been used commercially. Additionally, the site has shared access/maneuvering with the adjacent property. Traffic Engineering conducted a site visit and stated a number of reasons why the access/maneuvering is inappropriate for commercial use. The reasons are as follows: 1) the distance between the proposed office and the property line is only 5 feet; 2) the site is not wide enough for a vehicle to maneuver past the building without crossing the property line; 3) the minimum for one-way access is 12-feet (24-feet for two-way), since this is a commercial use, ample access for two-way traffic should be considered, versus the one-way application that would apply to a residential use; and 4) the minimum for parking stalls on 90-degree angles is 8 feet wide and 20 feet long with 25 feet of space behind the stalls for maneuvering. This does not appear to be the case with this variance unless the vehicle crosses the property line for maneuvering purposes. Commercial use (again) necessitates ample maneuvering for traffic utilizing this building. As proposed, the site would be providing inadequate parking. The applicant did not submit documentation stating the number of employees, visitors, etc that would utilize the parking. As Dauphin Street is a very busy street, providing inadequate parking could pose a traffic problem.
There are concerns with the use of aggregate as a parking surface material. Aggregate has a tendency to shift onto the right-of-way and adjacent properties, and parking spaces are not readily delineated. As the site is zoned B-1, Buffer Business, residential use is allowed by right in this district. However, whenever there is a change in use, residential to commercial, the site is required to be in compliance with the tree and landscaping requirements. It should be noted that since the tree and landscaping ordinance went into effect in 1992, the Board has not granted a variance from the tree and landscaping ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance states that no variance shall be granted where economics are the basis for the application. Additionally, no variance shall be granted unless the Board is presented with sufficient evidence to find that the variance will not be contrary to the public interest, and that special conditions exist such that a literal enforcement of the Ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship. The Ordinance also states that a variance should not be approved unless the spirit and intent of the Ordinance is observed, and substantial justice done to the applicant and the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant failed to illustrate that a literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. It is simply the applicant s to change a residentially used building, which is allowed by right, into an office building.
RECOMMENDATION 5189 Date: July 14, 2003 Based upon the preceding, this application is recommended for denial.