The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZ-6029 Staff AnalysisNovember 27, 1995 I No. A Filp No.: owner Adm Descriptio n Zoned Variance Rerniested: Justification: Present Use of Pronert�: Pronosed ❑se of Property: Staff Report: A. Encrineering issues: Site Information Z-6029 City of Little Rock/Pat McGetrick, Agent for Healthsource Arkansas Adjacent to 333 Executive Court Part of the SE 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 3, T -1-N, R -13-W o-3 A variance is requested from the regulations of Section 36-341 to permit construction of a parking lot in the floodplain. Additional parking is needed to reduce the parking congestion on Executive Court. Vacant, floodplain 44 space parking lot The site is located on FIRM No. 050181 0006E effective November 3, 1993. The area proposed for development consists of a strip of land adjacent to and north of Rock Creek. The area was field defined by the location of an existing riprap slope to the north, sanitary sewer manhole along the east property line, Rock Creek along the south boundary, and to a point adjacent to the western edge of the Healthsource building, being the approximate limit of proposed development west. The area is a rectangle with approximate dimensions of 360 feet (E -W) by 90 feet (N -S) for a total area of 32,400 square feet, or 0.74 acres more or less (from 8-18-81 Grading Plan). The site was accessed from Executive Court, and staff noted an acute parking problem at the Healthsource Arkansas building. The floodway was accessed from the Healthsource parking lot, down a concrete drainage swale. Lawn clippings are routinely being dumped within the swale and over the NovembLsr 27, 1995 Item No .: A _ -c-on riprap slope adjacent to the regulatory floodway, and this is a violation of municipal code. Wetlands The site proposed for construction was tentatively identified by staff as a wetland habitat, with hydrophytic vegetation (cattails, cordgrasses, willows), hydric soils (water at ground surface during visit), and wetlands hydrology (floodplain). The channel of Rock Creek is an aquatic environment and Water of the United States. The Corps of Engineers holds jurisdiction over U.S. Waters and delineates wetland habitat, and must be contacted for prior approval of any development. Water Quality Impacts Rock Creek in this vicinity supports a healthy aquatic habitat, however staff observed indicators of both high nutrient loadings and elevated water temperature. Development would reduce the buffering afforded Healthsource's parking lot runoff by this natural buffer strip, and would retard vegetation along the creek banks that would reduce thermal pollution by providing shade to the creek channel. This is not a concern of the City Engineer's Office or the floodplain Administrator. It is a documented concern of the Department of Parks and Recreation. Parks and Recreation Department Little Rock Master Parks Plan (1983) identifies this site as a proposed park, in accordance with the open -space corridors program. The express purpose of this program is to provide multi -use as parks/street/utilities, preserve the stream bank, and protect the natural drainage course. Floodway Prohibitions The site is within the regulatory floodway. With respect to floodway prohibitions, such development must include a Certification of No increase in Base Flood Elevations, during discharge of a 100 -year rain event. If such certification is not possible, then the applicant must seek a Conditional Letter of Map Amendment prior to obtaining a Special Flood Hazard Area Development Permit from this office. Certification should include appropriate (HEC -2) engineering analysis of the effected reach and adjacent upstream and downstream segments, sufficient to prove no increase in the base flood elevation. Such data will be submitted to the Corps of Engineers for review and a determination of sound floodplain management, and the SFHA Development Permit is 2 November 27, 1995 conditioned on such Corps approval. Conditional approval from FEMA entails the same review parameters. Safety Concerns This office notes that there is an increased risk inherent in parking vehicles below the BFE, and the applicant should be advised that an operating plan addressing the removal of parked vehicles from the proposed facility prior to the occurrence of a significant rainfall event is required as evidence that the proposed work will not create any additional threat to public safety. Additional concerns regarding floodway development are identified at 44 CFR Chapter 1 (Part 65.12) and will be communicated to the applicant. B. Staff Analysis: The applicant, representing the owners of the property at 333 Executive Court, is requesting approval to construct a 44 space parking lot in the floodplain directly south of the existing office building. The proposed parking lot is actually located within the regulatory floodway of Rock Creek. As is true of any floodplain variance request, staff depends heavily on the City Engineer's review and recommendation. The City Engineer's office has raised several significant concerns which are noted above. There is concern with possible upstream flooding. This floodway drains over 4,000 acres. If a vehicle is left on the parking lot and is washed downstream, it could block the drainage structures. The proposed parking lot area is subject to flash flooding. Having vehicles and persons present in times of flood presents a safety hazard. These floods occur very quickly and would present a liability for all parties. The area has been designated as a wetlands area and therefore requires significant environmental review. A secondary issue of concern to the Planning Staff is the design of the parking lot itself. Even if the approval was given to pave this area, the parking lot could not be developed in compliance with other city code standards. No landscaping, wheel stops or other portions of the City Code related to the development of a parking lot would be allowed. All other developers in the City are required to make these improvements; it seems inappropriate to allow the development of this substandard parking lot. The proposed parking lot would be in a very conspicuous location, visible from the heavily trafficked I -630/I-430 interchange. It is staff's opinion that allowing the development of a substandard parking lot would not be in the best interest of the City. 3 November 27, 1995 Item No.: A (Cont.) C. ff Recomm9ndatign• Staff recommends denial of the floodplain variance request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 28, 1995) The applicant was not present. There were two objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Board that a deferral was requested by the applicant and staff. Both objectors present stated that they had no problem with a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the September 25, 1995 Board meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 25, 1995) The applicant was not present. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item and informed the Board that the applicant was requesting a deferral to the October Board meeting. Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, asked how many times the item could be deferred and expressed concerns about the proposal. She was advised that it was customary to grant a deferral, if requested by the applicant. A motion was made to defer the item to the October 30, 1995 Board meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT• (OCTOBER 30, 1995) Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item and recommended that it be deferred to a later date to allow the applicant and the City Engineer's Office more time to resolve issues related to the floodway. Mr. McGetrick agreed to the deferral. Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, expressed concern about the continued deferrals. A motion was made to defer the item to the November 27, 1995 Board meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. 4 November 27, 1995 Ttem No. A (Cont.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 27, 1995) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the owner of the property, the City of Little Rock, had chosen not to proceed with leasing the site to Healthsource. Staff recommended that the item be withdrawn. A motion was made to withdraw the application. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. 5