DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: September 14, 2017 Item #: _PZ-2017-153_ STAFF REPORT VARIANCE AND WAIVER THE ROSALYNN APARTMENTS Request: Variance and Waiver Project Name: The Rosalynn Apartments Site Address: 2198 Dresden Drive Parcel Number: 18-244-08-006 Applicant: Carl King, Tapestry Development Group Owner: Housing First Rosalynn Apartments, LLC Proposed Development: Renovate existing multi-family residential development Current Zoning: Corridor Commercial (CC): This zoning district is intended primarily for commercial and mixed-use development and related accessory uses at a medium density. This district provides a location for residences, retail, goods and services and offices to satisfy the common and frequent needs of the city's businesses and residents with design standards and design parameters to encourage a pedestrian-friendly traditional urban form, oriented to pedestrians, which will limit the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL with Conditions District Standards: CC Zoning District minimums prescribed Total FAR (max) 2.5 Front Yard 15 Building Coverage (max) 80% Rear Yard 20 Minimum Open Space 20% Side yard (abutting Res./Comm.) 0 /7.5 Building Height (min./max.) 24 /60 Min. Façade Height 18 Lot Size / Lot width (minimum) N/A; N/A Landscape Zone/Sidewalk Zone: 7 /8 Current Use: The property contains six multi-family residential buildings, one community/administrative building, an accessory gazebo structure, and a single surface parking lot and driveway. It is an Affordable Housing development that receives funding through State and Federal agencies. Regular City Council Meeting: 9/19/2017 1 of 6
Surrounding Land Uses: Site Description: West VR, Commercial offices in a residential structure East CC, Commercial strip shopping center North CC, The Benz Store automotive dealership; Talpa grocery and restaurant, and Bismillah Café. South VR, Chengming Inc. Apartments The subject property is an irregularly shaped somewhat rectangular lot located on Dresden Drive, just east of the intersection with Buford Highway and just west of Dresden Park. The lot is approximately 1.93 acres in size. It has a curved south lot line and cleft east lot line. A portion of the northeast corner of the lot is located in a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Overlay which accounts for just over 10% of the lot, but no structures exist in that area. The lot gradually slopes approximately 18 feet from northeast down towards the entrance in the southwest corner. There is a single access point on Dresden Drive, which connects to the surface parking lot and then to a driveway that goes behind the buildings along the rear lot line until it stubs out. There is an abundance of mature tree cover on all sides of the development, except in the rear where the lot line is located on the high side of a retaining which abuts the driveway. The lot contains six wood-framed two-story multifamily residential buildings with a combined 56 units, a wood-framed one-story community building that is also used for administrative purposes, and a gazebo in the large, mostly-grassed, interior courtyard. The structures were built in 2000. No significant renovations have since been made. Description of Proposed Project: The applicant states the seven buildings are in various stages of deterioration, and need to be rehabilitated, for which they have budgeted approximately $35,000 per unit for items such as roofing, interior fixtures, exterior building facades, amenities, landscaping, and sidewalk and elevated walkway repair. The structures and site, because they were legally developed prior to adoption of the UDO in compliance with the codes in effect at the time, are considered legal nonconforming in instances where the structures or site do not comply with current UDO regulations. The UDO, in Section 270-8, requires that when nonconforming structures are renovated the current regulations are applied to the property incrementally in proportion to the cost of the renovations. The cost of the proposed renovations to the existing structures totals over 60 percent of the fair market value of the structures, therefore the property is required to come into compliance with certain code sections, but not all of the UDO. Applicant s Requests: The applicant requests a variance and waiver from the following regulations of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): Variance from all provisions of Section 270-5(a) that regulates nonconforming structures. Waiver from all provisions of Section 320-21 to not come into compliance with the parking lot landscaping requirements. The property, an Affordable Housing development, receives public funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The funding source requires agreements to ensure the units be maintained as is. That agreement Regular City Council Meeting: 9/19/2017 2 of 6
requires the number of units to remain the same, and under the agreement the property cannot be redeveloped to a different use or to the same use in a different form. The applicant states that in order to secure the long-term financing needed for the project a variance from Section 270-5, to allow for the replacement of nonconforming structures in the event those structures are destroyed beyond 50 percent of their replacement value, is needed. This section is not triggered by the cost of redevelopment. It applies to all legal nonconforming lots and structures in the City, including structures on the subject property. The applicant has stated their intent to come into compliance with all required code sections, except Section 320-21, which contains the parking lot landscaping regulations. The applicant states that due to the configuration of the existing buildings and parking lot there is not enough space to provide the parking lot landscaping as required by code without losing parking spaces. Staff has discussed what parts of this section could be met, and those items are recommended conditions of approval. The applicant will be installing the required 7 foot wide landscape strip and 8 foot wide sidewalk, and street trees and pedestrian lights. The applicant will also install a minimum 5 foot wide paved path connecting the public sidewalk to the parking lot and internal sidewalk network, and will bring the dumpster into compliance as required by code. Staff Analysis: The UDO, in Section 280-16(b)(1), provides that no variance shall be granted to allow a building, structure or use not authorized in the applicable zoning district or a lesser lot size or greater density of development that is authorized in the applicable zoning district of such development. The proposed uses and associated structures are authorized in the CC zoning district. The applicant is not proposing to create a lesser lot size or greater density than is authorized in the district. The UDO, in Section 280-16(b)(2), provides the following factors for granting a variance from UDO requirements. The analysis of these factors is included below: a. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular property in question because of its size, shape or topography; The conditions that are exceptional to the site are primarily the structures themselves, and those conditions are due to the fact that the development of the site predates current UDO regulations. The lot is neither significantly shallow nor narrow and has plenty of frontage. The irregular shape of the lot does not pose a significant challenge to development of the site, but the change in grade from the northeast corner towards Dresden Road could make complete redevelopment of the lot difficult in the event that the structures are destroyed by more than 50 percent of their replacement value and the property had to come into full compliance with UDO requirements. The RPZ Overlay that exists in the northeast portion of the lot does pose a constraint for the future redevelopment of the lot in compliance with current UDO regulations. The RPZ currently occupies just over 10% of the area of the lot. The current development predates the RPZ Overlay. Any future development Regular City Council Meeting: 9/19/2017 3 of 6
would be faced with staying out of the RPZ and meeting all code requirements such as providing adequate parking, dumpster and loading space in addition to the primary structures. The existing configuration of the structures and the location of the parking area and dumpster make it impossible for the parking lot to come into compliance with the parking lot landscaping requirements unless two parking spaces are lost. There is no feasible location to relocate the two spaces. The lot currently has 27 parking spaces. The UDO requires 84 parking spaces. The applicant states that most of the residents do not own an automobile due to an inability to afford one. There are alternative transportation options made available to the residents. b. The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship; The multi-family residential use is an allowed use in the CC zoning district, however, there are regulations in the UDO that would prevent a development such as this from being rebuilt as is, or in a similar configuration in the event that the structures are destroyed in excess of 50 percent of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. In this case, the use and renovation of the structures are tied to certain funding sources that have strict regulations for that funding, including that the building remain as is once the renovations are made, and replaced like-for-like in the event of destruction by a natural disaster. The application of this zoning ordinance to the particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship. The applicant has stated the number of parking spaces are adequate for the use, but that the property owners do not wish to become any more non-conforming in terms of parking. There is no alternative to the current parking configuration that would allow for the installation of landscape islands and for the property to keep the same number of parking spaces. c. Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; The slope of the property is not peculiar to the property. Many properties in the City feature sloping terrain to a similar degree. There is a small number of properties in the City that are located within one of the six RPZ Overlays around the airport. However, being partially located in a RPZ Overlay is unique to an even smaller group of properties. Properties partially located in one of these zones have a greater economically viable use than properties entirely within them, but must be developed around the RPZ Overlay without encroaching it, which could be difficult. The lot was permitted to be developed with much fewer parking spaces than the minimum required in the UDO for this use. This could be due to the use being classified differently when the property was developed, but staff cannot confirm that. Staff could not identify any previous zoning cases for the property. d. Such conditions are not the result of any actions of the property owner; and The lot was developed prior to the current regulations of the UDO. The conditions of the site, including the RPZ Overlay, are not the result of any actions of the property owner. Many aspects of Regular City Council Meeting: 9/19/2017 4 of 6
the lot are in conformity with the regulations of the UDO, however those that are not, such as the requirement that multi-family residential buildings in the CC zoning district must have nonresidential uses on the first floor, hinder the continued use of the property for Affordable Housing. The property would also have to come into compliance with the parking regulations in the UDO, which staff believes would be excessive for the site given the uniqueness of the use. e. Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of this zoning ordinance. Grant of the requested variances would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the purposes or intent of the UDO. The proposed renovations to the existing multi-family residential structures are compatible with Chamblee s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has General Policies which are general non-geographic based guidelines that provide direction for the implementation of the plan s vision. One General Policy is, We will create affordable housing opportunities to ensure that all those who work in the community have a viable choice or option to live in the community, as a General Policy. Staff Recommendations: Based on the analysis of this application, using the standards and criteria found in Chapter 280 of the UDO, staff recommends APPROVAL of the following variance and waiver requests in application PZ-2017-153, with the following exhibits and conditions: Exhibit A: Proposed Site Plan, dated July 21, 2017 Exhibit B: Elevations, dated August 2, 2017 1. Development shall be in substantial conformity with Exhibit A: Proposed Site Plan, dated July 21, 2017. 2. Development shall be in substantial conformity with Exhibit B: Elevations, dated August 2, 2017. 3. A Variance from Section 270-5(a)(2)&(3) to be able to reconstruct all primary and accessory structures on site in the event that the structures are destroyed to an extent of 50 percent or more of the replacement cost of the structures at the time of destruction. 4. A Waiver from Section 320-21(a)(1),(2)(3)&(5) to not install Landscape islands that shall be located no farther apart than every ten parking spaces and at the terminus of all rows of parking; to not provide a 5 foot wide landscape strip along the perimeter of a surface parking lot. 5. Applicant shall install a minimum 5 foot wide pedestrian path connecting the administrative building and parking lot to the sidewalk. Attachments: Attachment 1 Exhibit A: Proposed Site Plan, dated July 21, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting: 9/19/2017 5 of 6
Attachment 2 Exhibit B: Elevations, dated August 2, 2017 Attachment 3 Application and Letter of Intent Attachment 4 Location Maps Regular City Council Meeting: 9/19/2017 6 of 6