Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6407-B Staff AnalysisJuly 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 File No.: owner: Address: Description: zoned: Variance Requested: Z -6407-B Walker -Franklin Partnership, Jerry and Sharon Coates, One National Bank 11624 West Markham and 111 N. Bowman Road Lots C2, 7, 8 and 9, Markham Commercial Subdivision C-3 The following variances are requested: (1) The Off Premise Sign provisions of Section 36-556 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit: Shared Monument signage on Lot C2 and Off -Premise Directional signage on Lot 7. (2) The Wall Signs provisions of Section 36-557 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit: An additional wall sign on the south wall of the building on Lots 7, 8, and 9 without direct street frontage. (3) The Building Setback provisions of Section 36-301 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit: Encroachment into the side yard setback and the front yard setback on West Markham Street for Lot C2. (4) The Encroachment provisions of Section 8-305 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit: Construction of parking, drives, and drive-through canopy to be built within the floodway map line. (5) The Building Line provisions of Section 31-12 to permit: Encroachments across the platted side and front building lines. July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 (Cont. (6) The Floodway Setback provisions of Section 36-341(h)(2) to permit: Construction of a building closer than 25 feet to the established floodway line. Justification: A licant's Statement: This filing shows the whole picture of the two proposed developments that are to be linked with a cross access drive over Rock Creek. The reasons and justifications for these variances are described as follows: 1. Lot C2 setbacks: The Lot C2 area has a very irregular configuration and is extremely limited by the floodway map line by both standard and platted setbacks on the property. We have proposed a 7.5 foot setback on the western side yard and a 20 foot front yard setback area. 2. Lot C2 signage:, We are utilizing less signage than is allowed on Lot C2. The Bowman Road sign is less in height and area, and the Markham sign is as well. We also have over 300 feet of frontage on Markham which would allow two full size street signs. We are requesting that a "shared" monument sign be allowed for the use of both Lot C2 and the Walgreen's site in exchange for this reduction. 3. Walgreen's signage: The signage ordinances allow more freestanding street signage than is proposed to be used (2- 160 SF Signs, 36 feet in height). We proposed to use only one sign and would like to "apply credit" from the second sign to allow the additional building sign and the "off premises" directional sign for Lot C2. 2 July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2(Cont.) 4. Floodway encroachments: There are encroachments into the current floodway map lines on both proposals. Our concern here is that we do not feel that floodway lines are real based on the current conditions and drainage requirements in the City of Little Rock. The map lines reflect 100% development in this watershed. The study that placed them there did not allow for the detention storage requirements that exist inside the city. With detention storage requirements, no significant increase flood elevations should occur. Development currently exists in this area inside of the floodway map lines and this proposed development would remove an existing building structure from that area. We can develop the parking and drives "on grade" so as not to place additional fill in the floodway. The drive-through canopy at Walgreen's would cross the required setback and the map line, but will consist only on support columns on the ground. The basic summary is that we feel the floodway lines are shown incorrectly and in fact would be within the existing improved channel of the creek if applicable drainage requirements were considered. We will be meeting further with city engineering staff to explore this in more detail and will make a more detailed presentation to make at the hearing. Present Use of Propert Lots C2 and 7 are vacant, Lot 9 is an abandoned restaurant, and Lot 8 is a retail business and barber shop. 3 July 27, 1998 I 2 (Cont Proposed Use of Property: Branch Bank facility and Walgreen's retail store. Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: 1. Bowman Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. A sketch grading and drainage plan, a special flood hazard permit, and a special grading permit for flood hazard areas are required. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCE) and NPDES permit are also required. 5. Stormwater detention Ordinance applies to this property. 6. Improvements shown on Walgreen's site that involve parking in the floodway are prohibited by City Policy and City Ordinance. Building construction in the floodway will require Corps of Engineers and FEMA approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 8. South driveways into Bowman Road to close and add drive for exit only just east of bank building. 9. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards. 10. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 11. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and the "MSP". 12. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 13. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. 14. Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Completed plans must be approved by Traffic Engineering prior to construction. Obtain barricade/street cut permits for improvements within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way. 15. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to - Traffic Engineering. 4 July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 Cont. 16. Utility excavation within proposed be per Article V of Sec. 30. 17. Bridge will not be approved until modeling and map revisions. B. Staff Analysis: rights-of-way shall FEMA is provided The applicant proposes to construct two new buildings on four C-3 zoned lots located in the vicinity of Markham Street and Bowman Road. Three of the lots are located on the north side of Rock Creek and front onto Markham Park Drive. The fourth lot is located south of the creek and fronts onto Markham Street. Lot C2, the lot on the south side of the creek is currently vacant. A small branch bank is proposed for this lot. A Walgreen's Drug Store is proposed for development on Lots 7, 8 and 9 located north of the creek. Lot 7 is currently vacant. An empty restaurant building is on Lot 9 and a building containing a discount bakery outlet and a barber shop is located on Lot -8. The buildings on Lots 8 and 9 will be removed. The proposed development has generated several variance requests primarily in three areas; building setback/building line, floodway/floodplain and signage. In order to clarify the various issues, each building site will be presented separately in the remainder of the analysis. Lot C2 is proposed for development of a 720 square foot branch bank building with a detached drive-through service canopy. Both structures are proposed to have a front yard setback from Markham Street of 20 feet. The code requires a front yard setback of 25 feet in the C-3 district. The buildings will also extend across a platted 25 foot building line. The bank building itself is proposed to have a 7.5 foot side yard setback from the adjacent R-2 zoned lot. The code requires a side yard setback of 15 feet in the C-3 district where abutting residentially zoned property. The building will also extend across a platted 15 foot side yard building line. The applicant proposes one ground -mounted sign on the Markham Street frontage to serve the bank on Lot C2 and to have an off premise message directing customers through Lot C2, across the bridge and to Walgreens on Lots 7, 8 and 9. Staff is supportive of the variance requests related to Lot C2. It is a small, unusually shaped lot and allowing a 5 foot front yard variance does not seem unreasonable. Although the lot adjacent to the west is zoned R-2, it is occupied by a Little Rock Water Works pump station and will never be occupied by a residence. Allowing the requested 7.5 foot side yard setback will have no effect on the Water Works' property. In the C-3 District, no side yard setback at all is required except where abutting residential properties. The applicant proposes to have only one, 10 foot tall, 140 square foot monument type ground mounted sign 5 July 27, 1998 No.. 2 (Cont. on Markham Street. The sign will identify both the bank and the Walgreen's Store. Lot C2 has in excess of 330 feet of frontage on Markham Street and is permitted two, 36 foot tall, 160 square foot ground -mounted signs. The applicant has offered to waive the right to a second sign on Markham if the one sign is permitted. Staff believes this is a reasonable request. The proposed bridge ties the bank and Walgreen's sites together as if it were one development. Staff believes it is appropriate to require that the area of the sign identifying the on premise business (bank) exceed that area identifying the off premise business. Thus, the sign will not be a true "off -premise" sign. Lots 7, 8, and 9 are proposed for development of a 13,835± square foot Walgreen's Drug Store with a drive through window. The variances related to the Walgreen's site are in the areas of floodplain/floodway and signage. The applicant proposes to have driveways and a portion of the site's parking in the Rock Creek Floodway. Additionally; the drive-through canopy and support posts are located within the floodway. The dumpster is shown to be in the floodway but will be relocated. Section 8-305 of the code prohibits any development in the floodway unless certification by a professional registered engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. The proposed Walgreen's building has a setback of 2± feet from the floodway line. Section 36-341(h)(2)(a) states "no structure shall be closer than 25 feet to any established floodway line." Section 36-341(h)(2)(d) states "floodways are to be kept free of structural involvement including fences, open storage of materials and equipment, vehicle parking and other impediments. Staff depends heavily on input from the City's Public Works staff and floodplain administrator when reviewing proposed floodway/floodplain variances. Public Works has reviewed the proposal and, with one exception, states that the variances may be granted subject to FEMA and Corps of Engineers approval. The one exception is the proposed parking spaces in the floodway. The City of Little Rock has established policy prohibiting parking in the floodway. Having driveways in the floodway implies that vehicles are not unattended. Parking spaces in the floodway opens the possibility of unattended vehicles being left in the area during a possible flood event. The likelihood of a vehicle washing into the creek increases if unattended vehicles are permitted in the floodway. Also associated with Lots 7, 8 and 9 are two sign variances. The Walgreen's Store is to be located at one corner of N. Bowman and Markham Park. The site is entitled to two ground -mounted signs, one on each street side. The applicant proposes to have only one ground -mounted sign and, in lieu of the second sign, to have a wall sign on the back 11 July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 wall of the Walgreen's Store. This sign would not have direct street frontage, as is required by Section 36-557; but would be visible from Markham Street. Staff believes this is a reasonable trade-off in signage. The second sign variance is to allow a small off -premise directional sign on the Markham Park Drive side, directing customers to the bank site across the creek. This proposed off -premise sign would be a 2 foot by 4 foot monument sign with an actual sign area of 4 square feet. Staff does not believe this proposed off premise sign is necessary and does not support the variance. Should the Board approve the building line variances for Lot C2, the applicant will have to do a one lot replat reflecting the change in the building line. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's Office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: The variance requests for each site will be presented separately Lot C2 Staff recommends approval of the building' -line and setback variances for the proposed branch bank and drive through canopy subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Public Works Comments 2. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. 3. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances Staff recommends approval of the sign variance to allow the ground -mounted sign on Lot C2 to also identify the business on Lots 7, 8 and 9 subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The area of the sign identifying the business on Lots 7, 8 and 9 must be less than the area of the sign identifying the on-site business on Lot C2. 2. There are to be no other ground mounted signs on the Markham Street frontage of Lot C2. 3. The shared usage of the sign is to be permitted only if the bridge connecting the two sites is constructed. Lots 7, 8 and 9 Staff recommends approval of the wall sign variance to allce a wall sign without direct street frontage subject to there being only one ground -mounted sign on the property (as was submitted by the applicant). 7 July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 Cont. Staff recommends denial of the sign variance to allow an off -premise sign on Lots 7, 8 and 9 to identify the business on Lot C2. Staff recommends approval of the floodway setback variances to allow the proposed building with a setback from the floodway less than 25 feet and to have driveways and the drive through canopy in the floodway subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including most importantly FEMA and Corps of Engineers approval. 2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinance Staff recommends denial of the floodway variance to allow parking in the floodway. The site plan must be redesigned to eliminate parking in the floodway. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 27, 1998) The Chairman identified the item for hearing and asked that staff present its recommendation. Richard Wood of staff briefly read the item to the record. He specifically identified the several variances which are requested. Wood closed his remarks by stating that the remaining item that staff feels somewhat strongly about is the freestanding advertising sign, off -premise. This sign proposes to direct traffic to the bank from the Walgreen site. At the conclusion of Wood's comments, he indicated that David Scherer, of Public Works, wanted to present some thoughts relative to the driveway issues. Mr. Scherer offered a lengthy discussion of the several points on which Public Works had concerns. He pointed out there had been a number of items that had been modified on the site plan such as removal of parking and the dumpster from the floodway. Mr. Scherer pointed out that in one of the several requests made by the applicant, specifically the one about the parking in the floodway the variance request had been eliminated and is included in the language for item 4 on the agenda under the request. He then moved his comments to the canopy and the bridge commenting on the encroachment in the floodway. He stated that the applicant had considerable work remaining in order to allow these constructions. He said the Corps of Engineers and FEMA would have to approve of these proposals. Mr. Scherer then moved his comments to the subject of the drive from the bank site onto Bowman Road. He offered a lengthy explanation of the current design and stated that the traffic engineer prefers to keep this driveway and exit drive only to the right. L-3 July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 (Cont He felt this was an acceptable method to avoid people possibly from coming south on Bowman Road and using the right -end lane northbound for purposes of making a left turn into the bank site. So at this point, their recommendation is a right -out only going north onto Bowman Road. He then moved his comments to the floodway stating that staff did not have a problem with the setback variance on the floodway. At the conclusion of remarks by Mr. Scherer, a board member (William Ruck) introduced a question concerning the driveway access point onto Markham and its effect on traffic movement in that area. Mr. Scherer•s response to this was, this business has to have an access point onto Markham Street and from Markham Street. He stated that by ordinance this development had a right to an access point onto Markham Street and the spacing for this driveway onto an arterial street seems to be about as good as it can be done. At the conclusion of remarks on this subject, again a question was posed by Commissioner Ruck about Alamo Drive. Commissioner Ruck did not think that this had been discussed at all and the issue of traffic access to the bank site. His point was dealing with the alignment of the driveway to the bank versus the alignment with the Alamo Drive intersection and the impact on traffic turning movements. In a brief discussion of that issue, Mr. Scherer pointed out that he thought the alignment of the intersection was -somewhat offset with the bank driveway being to the west of Alamo Drive. Commissioner Ruck then inserted additional comments about his concern for the traffic access to businesses on the south side of Markham as well as the 200+ residences of the Birchwood Subdivision and their ability to have safe entrance and exit. He then posed a question as to whether or not there had been consideration given to closing Alamo Drive. Mr. Scherer responded by saying he had not heard discussion on that subject. He stated that he was also not aware of the accident rate at this intersection. Mr. Scherer returned to the basic issues at hand and pointed out those things Public Works felt were beyond their involvement and the areas they felt remained to be dealt with such as the canopy and the bridge. A lengthy discussion then followed concerning whether or not the several plans have been accomplished on Rock Creek by various parties produced a result that said the floodway could be contained within the current channel or would be outside of the channel. This issue has yet to be resolved. Mr. Scherer again restated the position of Public Works by saying the variance issues they support are those that they were directly responsible for or involved in. At this time, there are two unresolved issues being the canopy on the drive through and the bridge proposal across the creek. There is an outstanding issue of the right -turn in and the right -turn out from the bank site onto Bowman Road. Mr. Scherer stated he felt the only issue remaining in contention would be the driveway issue to the bank. July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 At this point, Cindy Dawson inserted a question to Mr. Scherer. She asked what variance issue is directly related to the driveway issue? Mr. Scherer responded by saying that is not one of the variance requests in this application, but a traffic engineer's review item introduced by Public Works. This access point is an issue for Public Works and Traffic Engineering Departments' review and approval during the course of this site plan review. According to city ordinance, Bill Henry has to approve of this design. He further clarified by saying the Traffic Engineer's responsibility was to turning movements not to whether or not the applicant has a right to the driveway. At this point, the Traffic Engineer is restricting left turn inbound and right turn inbound allowing only the right turn exiting. Again, Cindy Dawson asked for clarification and if it has any bearing on any other variances that have been requested. Mr. Scherer stated they did not have direct bearing. Ms. Dawson then stated that, what Public Works wanted then is the conditions of Public Works Department be attached to the several variances as requested and as changed by whatever Mr. Scherer mentioned in today's meeting. Mr. Scherer stated that was correct and they had already removed the dumpster and the parking in the floodway issue. Mr. Scherer expanded that thought by saying the bridge will not be constructed until FEMA approves modeling or map provisions to accommodate the construction. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Robert Brown from DCI, representing the applicant. Mr. Brown stated that the staff and its recommendation had recommended approval of nearly everything they had submitted. However, he stated the bank on the Markham Street lot would still like the Board to consider the placement of the direction sign on Markham Park Drive. For identity purpose it would actually be at the driveway entrance to Walgreens on lot 7. Mr. Brown pointed out that his clients were basically in accordance with staff recommendations on this issue except for the sign. There was still the remaining issue they wish to take the opportunity to work through with Public Works being the right -turn in and the right -turn out issue on the Bowman Road driveway. He stated this is something they should work out with Public Works and if necessary appeal to the Board of Directors for final resolution. The driveway issues are really not a consideration they are asking for before this board. David Scherer approached the podium again and concurred with Mr. Brown saying he did not believe this was an issue for the Board to be dealing with at this time. If Mr. Brown can't convince Bill Henry to allow more access at this point or otherwise, then Public Works is recommending appeal of the issue to the City Board. For the record, Mr. Brown noted that when his client began dealing with this property and he started working on the project that nothing in the record indicated that any previous commitment 10 July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 (Cont. to a one way driveway was made by anyone. Mr. Brown stated that he wanted to enter into the record at this point, that his clients would comply with floodway if this provision is required by FEMA. They did not necessarily want to make any map revisions unless FEMA made that requirement. At this point, Cindy Dawson of the City Attorney's Office posed a question of Mr. Scherer as to exactly how he wanted the language to read or be modified in item 17 on page 5 of the write-up. In responding Mr. Scherer briefly ran through the process involved in submitting the request for FEMA review. In specific response to Ms. Dawson's question he stated, "it provides modeling and map revisions if required by FEMA." The Chairman at this time then asked Mr. Brown again if he was comfortable with the issue as had been presented by staff recommendation and comments made. He stated that, "yes, he was comfortable with it", with the exceptions he had previously noted. They would like to have the off -premise sign for the bank on lot 6 and would like to continue negotiations with Public Works on the driveway from the bank to Bowman Road. A board member at this point asked Mr. Brown to clarify what was meant by directional sign. Mr. Brown stated that this was a sign proposed to be mounted freestanding at the drive entry on Markham Park Drive. The sign would be standing at the drive entry on Markham Park Drive. The sign would be 2 feet by -2 feet with the name "One Bank" with an arrow. At the conclusion of Mr. Brown's remarks, Richard Wood of staff gained the floor for purposes of identifying that he had discussed this with Kenny Scott, of the Enforcement Staff. They had discussed whether or not there was any potential for erecting an off -premise directional sign. The information received from Mr. Scott was that in policy a 2 foot square sign would be allowed by right much like Mr. Brown had described but limited to 2 square feet in area. Wood stated that generally off -premise advertising signs are disallowed by ordinance. In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Wood stated that the 2 square feet is by right and that 4 feet would be a required variance from this Board. Mr. Brown stated that he still would like a vote on the 4 square foot sign as proposed by his client. The Chairman then turned the hearing to receiving comments from persons in objection to the proposal. The first of these was Mr. Boyd, a resident of the Birchwood Neighborhood, lying to the south and east. Mr. Boyd offered a lengthy discussion of issues primarily concerned with the access to and from his neighborhood and what he felt was the inappropriate design of these lots and their development. He felt that constructing this project with a driveway on Markham Street as shown would cause a traffic congestion problem beyond that which already exists on Markham Street. In several comments offered by Mr. Boyd, he made it quite clear that he felt the City had not given his neighborhood proper consideration in any commercial development within the immediate area. Mr. Boyd did not offer any specific commentary 11 July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 (Cont. as to the several variances that were before the Board. He concluded his remarks by saying the location of the driveway as proposed with the bridge tying to the Walgreen project would practically bottleneck his neighborhood by almost totaling eliminating left turns out of Alamo onto Markham Street. A number of comments were inserted by various persons during the course of Mr. Boyd's discussion. Most of these comments having to do with how his comments are not really relevant to the issues at hand. The Board of Adjustment does not have the power of authority to do anything with the subject matter he was discussing. In conclusion and to Mr. Boyd's remarks, Robert Brown representing the applicant made some brief comments on the same general subjects. The Chairman then closed the hearing and indicated that he preferred the Board of Adjustment deal with this matter by voting on the several recommendations as presented by the staff on the several issues. This meaning to start on page 7 with item C, "Staff Recommendation". To begin this, the Chairman first read item 1 under "Staff Recommendation" dealing with the building line setback variances for the branch bank and drive through. Prior to a vote on this item 1, the Board suggested there is perhaps some conflict under "Staff Recommendations". It includes compliance under Public Works comments and some of these comments may not necessarily pertain in light of some the previous commentary. For the purpose of the motion and vote, David Scherer pointed out that item 8 under "Public Works Recommendations" are issues that should be modified to read as follows and deleting all of the -current language: "The drive through to Bowman Road from lot C2 (the bank site) is to exit only north bound." In response to Ms. Dawson's comment about the remaining comments under Public Works issues, David Scherer pointed out that the only other item that has been modified is item 17 under that listing which dealt with the bridge and FEMA. Mr. Scherer point out for clarification that the motion or the approval by the Board on the staff's recommendation for item 1 would be compliance with the Public Works Comments as amended on items 8 and 17. At the conclusion of these several remarks, the Chairman asked for the vote on item 1 and the staff recommendation. The request produced a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. The Chairman then moved to the second recommendation. This sign variance is for a ground -mounted sign on the bank site also tied to the Walgreen site. After completing the second staff recommendation, the Chairman placed the second item on the floor for a vote. The vote produced was 4 ayes, 1 nay and 0 absent. The Chairman then moved to the third recommendation which is the wall -sign variance without direct street frontage on the Walgreen building and carrying with that the restriction of only one 12 July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 _(Cont. ground -mounted sign on the property as a trade-off. After reading this item, the Chairman placed the item on the floor for a vote. The vote produced 3 ayes, 2 nays and 0 absent. The Chairman then moved to the action of the fourth staff recommendation dealing with the staff's recommendation of denial of the off -premise sign which identifies the bank site. Prior to proceeding to a vote, Cindy Dawson pointed out that this is a negative recommendation on the part of the staff and the Board needs'to deal with this in a positive fashion for their vote. They should place the vote in a motion for the affirmative on the request as filed by the applicant. The Chairman then placed this item on the floor for a vote. The vote by the Board on the sign variance produced 0 ayes, 5 nays and 0 absent. The variance is denied. The fifth staff recommendation dealt with the floodway setback variances and the canopy in the floodway. At the conclusion of the Chairman's reading of this recommendation, the reggest for a vote produced 5 ayes and 0 nays. The Chairman then moved the discussion to the sixth staff recommendation which deals with parking in the floodway. At this point, it was identified by both Mr. Scherer and the Chairman that this item had been withdrawn by the applicant and was no longer an issue before the Board. 13 July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 File No. Owner: Address: Description- Zoned: variance Re ested: Z -6407-B Walker -Franklin Partnership, Jerry and Sharon Coates, One National Bank 11624 West Markham and 111 N. Bowman Road Lots C2, 7, 8 and 9, Markham Commercial Subdivision C-3 The following variances are requested: (1) The Off Premise Sign provisions of Section 36-556 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit: Shared Monument signage on Lot C2 and Off -Premise Directional signage on Lot 7. (2) The Wall Signs provisions of Section 36-557 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit: An additional wall sign on the south wall of the building on Lots 7, 8, and 9 without direct street frontage. (3) The Building Setback provisions of Section 36-301 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit: Encroachment into the side yard setback and the front yard setback on West Markham Street for Lot C2. (4) The Encroachment provisions of Section 8-305 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit: Construction of parking, drives, and drive-through canopy to be built within the floodway map line. (5) The Building Line provisions of Section 31-12 to permit: Encroachments across the platted side and front building lines. July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 (Cont. (6) The Floodway Setback provisions of Section 36-341(h)(2) to permit: Construction of a building closer than 25 feet to the established floodway line. Justification: Applicant's Statement: This filing shows the whole picture of the two proposed developments that are to be linked with a cross access drive over Rock Creek. The reasons and justifications for these variances are described as follows: 1. Lot C2 setbacks: The Lot C2 area has a very irregular configuration and is extremely limited by the floodway map line by both standard and platted setbacks on the property. We have proposed a 7.5 foot setback on the western side yard and a 20 foot front yard setback area. 2. Lot C2 signage:-- We are utilizing less signage than is allowed on Lot C2. The Bowman Road sign is less in height and area, and the Markham sign is as well. We also have over 300 feet of frontage on Markham which would allow two full size street signs. We are requesting that a "shared" monument sign be allowed for the use of both Lot C2 and the Walgreen's site in exchange for this reduction. 3. Walgreen's signage: The signage ordinances allow more freestanding street signage than is proposed to be used (2- 160 SF Signs, 36 feet in height). We proposed to use only one sign and would like to "apply credit" from the second sign to allow the additional building sign and the "off premises" directional sign for Lot C2. 2 July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 (Cont. 4. Floodway encroachments: There are encroachments into the current floodway map lines on both proposals. Our concern here is that we do not feel that floodway lines are real based on the current conditions and drainage requirements in the City of Little Rock. The map lines reflect 100% development in this watershed. The study that placed them there did not allow for the detention storage requirements that exist inside the city. With detention storage requirements, no significant increase flood elevations should occur. Development currently exists in this area inside of the floodway map lines and this proposed development would remove an existing building structure from that area. We can develop the parking and -drives "on grade" so as not to place additional fill in the floodway. The drive-through canopy at Walgreen's would cross the required setback and the map line, but will consist only on support columns on the ground. The basic summary is that we feel the floodway lines are shown incorrectly and in fact would be within the existing improved channel of the creek if applicable drainage requirements were considered. We will be meeting further with city engineering staff to explore this in more detail and will make a more detailed presentation to make at the hearing. Present Use of Property: Lots C2 and 7 are vacant, Lot 9 is an abandoned restaurant, and Lot 8 is a retail business and barber shop. 3 July 27, 1998 Item No. 2 (,Cont.) Proposed Use of Property: Branch Bank facility and Walgreen's retail store. Staff Report: A. Public Works Issues: 1. Bowman Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. A sketch grading and drainage plan, a special flood hazard permit, and a special grading permit for flood hazard areas are required. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCE) and NPDES permit are also required. 5. Stormwater detention Ordinance applies to this property. 6. Improvements shown on Walgreen's site that involve parking in the floodway are prohibited by City Policy and City Ordinance. Building construction in the floodway will require Corps of Engineers and FEMA approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 8. South driveways into Bowman Road to close and add drive for exit only just east of bank building. 9. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards. 10. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 11. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and the "MSP". 12. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 13. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. 14. Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Completed plans must be approved by Traffic Engineering prior to construction. Obtain barricade/street cut permits for improvements within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way. 15. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to. Traffic Engineering. 4 July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 (Cont. 16. Utility excavation within proposed be per Article V of Sec. 30. 17. Bridge will not be approved until modeling and map revisions. B. Staff Analysis: rights-of-way shall FEMA is provided The applicant proposes to construct two new buildings on four C-3 zoned lots located in the vicinity of Markham Street and'Bowman Road. Three of the lots are located on the north side of Rock Creek and front onto Markham Park Drive. The fourth lot is located south of the creek and fronts onto Markham Street. Lot C2, the lot on the south side of the creek is currently vacant. A small branch bank is proposed for this lot. A Walgreen's Drug Store is proposed for development on Lots 7, 8 and 9 located north of the creek. Lot 7 is currently vacant. An empty restaurant building is on Lot 9 and a building containing a discount bakery outlet and a barber shop is located on Lot 8. The buildings on Lots 8 and 9 will be removed. The proposed development has generated several variance requests primarily in three areas; building setback/building line, floodway/floodplain and signage. In order to clarify the various issues, each building site will be presented separately in the remainder of the analysis. Lot C2 is proposed for development of a 720 square foot branch bank building with a detached drive-through service canopy. Both structures are proposed to have a front yard setback from Markham Street of 20 feet. The code requires a front yard setback of 25 feet in the C-3 district. The buildings will also extend across a platted 25 foot building line. The bank building itself is proposed to have a 7.5 foot side yard setback from the adjacent R-2 zoned lot. The code requires a side yard setback of 15 feet in the C-3 district where abutting residentially zoned property. The building will also extend across a platted 15 foot side yard building line. The applicant proposes one ground -mounted sign on the Markham Street frontage to serve the bank on Lot C2 and to have an off premise message directing customers through Lot C2, across the bridge and to Walgreens on Lots 7, 8 and 9. Staff is supportive of the variance requests related to Lot C2. It is a small, unusually shaped lot and allowing a 5 foot front yard variance does not seem unreasonable. Although the lot adjacent to the west is zoned R-2, it is occupied by a Little Rock Water Works pump station and will never be occupied by a residence. Allowing the requested 7.5 foot side yard setback will have no effect on the Water Works' property. In the C-3 District, no side yard setback at all is required except where abutting residential properties. The applicant proposes to have only one, 10 foot tall, 140 square foot monument type ground mounted sign 5 July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 (Cont. on Markham Street. The sign will identify both the bank and the Walgreen's Store. Lot C2 has in excess of 330 feet of frontage on Markham Street and is permitted two, 36 foot tall, 160 square foot ground -mounted signs. The applicant has offered to waive the right to a second sign on Markham if the one sign is permitted. Staff believes this is a reasonable request. The proposed bridge ties the bank and Walgreen's sites together as if it were one development. Staff believes it is appropriate to require that the area of the sign identifying the on premise business (bank) exceed that area identifying the off premise business. Thus, the sign will not be a true "off -premise" sign. Lots 7, 8, and 9 are proposed for development of a 13,835± square foot Walgreen's Drug Store with a drive through window. The variances related to the Walgreen's site are in the areas of floodplain/floodway and signage. The applicant proposes to have driveways and a portion of the site's parking in the Rock Creek Floodway. Additionally, the drive-through canopy and support posts are located within the floodway. The dumpster is shown to be in the floodway but will be relocated. Section 8-305 of the code prohibits any development in the floodway unless certification by a professional registered engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. The proposed Walgreen's building has a setback of 2± feet from the floodway line. Section 36-341(h)(2)(a) states "no structure shall be closer than 25 feet to any established floodway line." Section 36-341(h)(2)(d) states "floodways are to be kept free of structural involvement including fences, open storage of materials and equipment, vehicle parking and other impediments. Staff depends heavily on input from the City's Public Works staff and floodplain administrator when reviewing proposed floodway/floodplain variances. Public Works has reviewed the proposal and, with one exception, states that the variances may be granted subject to FEMA and Corps of Engineers approval. The one exception is the proposed parking spaces in the floodway. The City of Little Rock has established policy prohibiting parking in the floodway. Having driveways in the floodway implies that vehicles are not unattended. Parking spaces in the floodway opens the possibility of unattended vehicles being left in the area during a possible flood event. The likelihood of a vehicle washing into the creek increases if unattended vehicles are permitted in the floodway. Also associated with Lots 7, 8 and 9 are two sign variances. The Walgreen's Store is to be located at one corner of N. Bowman and Markham Park. The site is entitled to two ground -mounted signs, one on each street side. The applicant proposes to have only one ground -mounted sign and, in lieu of the second sign, to have a wall sign on the back G July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 (Cont. wall of the Walgreen's Store. This sign would not have direct street frontage, as is required by Section 36-557, but would be visible from Markham Street. Staff believes this is a reasonable trade-off in signage. The second sign variance is to allow a small off -premise directional sign on the Markham Park Drive side, directing customers to the bank site across the creek. This proposed off -premise sign would be a 2 foot by 4 foot monument sign with an actual sign area of 4 square feet. Staff does not believe this proposed off premise sign is necessary and does not support the variance. Should the Board approve the building line variances for Lot C2, the applicant will have to do a one lot replat reflecting the change in the building line. The applicant should review the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's Office to determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of Assurance. C. Staff Recommendation: The variance requests for each site will be presented separately Lot C2 Staff recommends approval of the building., -line and setback variances for the proposed branch bank and drive through canopy subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Public -Works Comments 2. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building line as approved by the Board. 3. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances Staff recommends approval of the sign variance to allow the ground -mounted sign on Lot C2 to also identify the business on Lots 7, 8 and 9 subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The area of the sign identifying the business on Lots 7, 8 and 9 must be less than the area of the sign identifying the on-site business on Lot C2. 2. There are to be no other ground mounted signs on the Markham Street frontage of Lot C2. 3. The shared usage of the sign is to be permitted only if the bridge connecting the two sites is constructed. Lots 7, 8 and 9 Staff recommends approval of the wall sign variance to allow a wall sign without direct street frontage subject to there being only one ground -mounted sign on the property (as was submitted by the applicant). 7 July 27, 1998 Item No.: 2 (Cont.) Staff recommends denial of the sign variance to allow an off -premise sign on Lots 7, 8 and 9 to identify the business on Lot C2. Staff recommends approval of the floodway setback variances to allow the proposed building with a setback from the floodway less than 25 feet and to have driveways and the drive through canopy in the floodway subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including most importantly FEMA and Corps of Engineers approval. 2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinance Staff recommends denial of the floodway variance to allow parking in the floodway. The site plan must be redesigned to eliminate parking in the floodway. 8