Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6986 Staff AnalysisApril 30, 2001 Item No.: A File No. Owner: Address: Descriptio Zoned: Variance Requested: Justification: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Proper : Staff Report: A. Landscape Review: Z-6986 Superior Federal Bank 1800 N. Grant Street Lot 5, North 46.5 feet of Lot 6 and Lot 8, Block 9, Mountain Park Addition O-3 Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section'36-281, the parking provisions of Section 36-507 and the buffer requirements of Section 36-522. The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Full Service Bank Bank drive-thru teller service only The site plan submitted does not provide for the 9 foot wide street buffers along North University Avenue and Cantrell Road required by the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, it does not provide for -the 9 -foot wide landscape strips along North University and along the northern and a portion of the southern perimeters of the site required by the Landscape Ordinance. Since this site is located within the designated "mature area" a 25% reduction is allowed. However, the plan submitted is below this minimum width requirement of 6.7 feet. To reduce the width below this minimum requires a variance by the City Beautiful Commission. B. Public Works Issues: 1. Proposed building is located in MSP right-of-way required for Cantrell Road. April 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont. 2. A 20' radial dedication is required at the corner of Cantrell and Grant. 3. Cantrell Road is classified on the MSP as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55' from centerline is required. 4. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. 5_ Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 6. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. C. Staff Analysis: A Superior Federal Bank Facility is located on the 0-3 zoned property at 1800 North Grant Street. The bank has also acquired an 0-3 zoned lot located across the alley, west of the bank property. The bank proposes to raze the existing bank building and replace it with a drive-through teller only facility. The remainder of the bank's functions are to be located in an existing C-3 zoned building across Grant Street to the east. The recently acquired lot across the alley to the west is to be developed as parking for employees. All customer traffic to the new teller facility will be vehicle traffic only; there will be no public parking or "walk-up" customer traffic. The new teller facility will consist of a small (12' X 501) building with a large canopy that extends over 5 traffic lanes. Four lanes will be teller lanes with the fifth being an ATM lane. Each lane will have stacking space for 5 vehicles. The structure, building and canopy, will meet or exceed the required setbacks on the north (side), east_ (front) and west (rear). The bank is required to dedicate 25 feet of additional right-of-way for Cantrell Road. The proposed new teller building extends 5.7 feet into the new right-of-way. The code requires a 10 -foot side yard setback, to be measured from the new right-of-way line. Since the 11 new parking spaces proposed for development on the newly acquired lot are separated from the teller and bank facilities by an alley and Grant Street, they are considered off-site parking and a variance is required. 2 April 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) The street buffer along the North University Avenue perimeter of the new parking lot falls slightly below the 9 feet required by the Ordinance. Since the teller facility building actually extends across the property line on the Cantrell Road perimeter (once the right-of-way is dedicated) the buffer on that perimeter also falls below the 9 feet required by the Ordinance. Staff does support the variance to allow the off-site parking to be located on the newly acquired lot. This lot is well within walking distance to both the teller facility and the new bank location. The buffer variance on the University Avenue perimeter is minor and, with a small modification, may not be necessary at all. The issues related to the proposed location of the teller building itself are more complicated. As proposed, nearly half of the building will be located in the public right-of- way. A franchise would be required to allow the building to be constructed in the right-of-way. It is questionable whether it is good public policy to allow this to occur. Initial responses from other City departments are not favorable. Staff could support a 0 setback on the south (Cantrell Road) perimeter, once the required right-of-way is dedicated. This can be accomplished by eliminating one of the drive-through teller lanes and moving the building to the north. This would still leave 3 teller lanes, an ATM lane and a pass lane. Each of the teller and ATM lanes are capable of stacking 5 vehicles each. Even that level of activity on what will be a 70' X 140' lot seems on the verge of excessive. If the building were moved to provide a 0' side yard setback on the Cantrell Road perimeter, staff could also support a reduction in the buffer on that side. Until such time --as the road is ever widened, the additional 25 feet of right- of-way would be landscaped yard. A separate issue that is mentioned here for informational purposes only concerns landscaping. There are areas where the proposed landscaping falls below the minimum required by the ordinance. Variances from those standards can only be approved by the City Beautiful Commission. 3 April 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the off- site parking to be located on the lot located west of the alley and of the buffer variance to allow a reduction on the University Avenue perimeter of that parking lot subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance or waiver of the requirements as may be granted by the Board of Directors or the Director of Public Works. 2. Compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance including any variance or waiver of those requirements as may be granted by the City Beautiful Commission. Staff does not recommend approval of the requested variance to allow the proposed teller building to be located across the property line and to extend into the right-of-way for Cantrell Road. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MARCH 26, 2001) William Putnam and Charlie Peden were present representing the item. There were several objectors present. Staff informed the Board that a revised site plan had been submitted in which the proposed teller building had been moved out of the master street plan right-of-way. A 0' side yard setback was now requested on the Cantrell Road perimeter. Staff recommended approval of the requested off-site parking, buffer and setback variances subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. William Putnam stated that he had no comments but would prefer to answer questions and respond to comments raised by those present in opposition. Norm Floyd commented that he had a problem with the teller building being either in or immediately adjacent to the right-of- way. Mr. Putnam responded that the requirement to dedicate 25 feet of property for right-of-way created the need for the reduced setback. Mr. Floyd stated that he would prefer to see the building centered on the site with the drive-through lanes on either side. Mr. Putnam responded that the bank and its n April 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) architect had determined that the proposed design was the most efficient for serving its customers. Mr. Ruck asked if there would be a problem with not having a pass-through lane. Mr. Putnam responded that the ATM lane would serve as a pass-through lane. Mr. Putnam stated that the driving force behind the proposal was the City's request that the bank do something about customers stacking behind the one existing teller window and blocking traffic in Grant Street. In response to a question from Norm Floyd, City Traffic Engineer Bill Henry described the typical construction of a principal arterial street. Moise Seligman, owner of the property at 6020 Cantrell Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated the bank's new development would create traffic problems that would negatively impact the tenant of his building. Billie Seligman chose not to speak. Jan Woods, daughter of Jeanette Corder who is part-owner of the adjacent commercial development at 5901-5921 "R" Street, spoke in opposition. She stated the bank had leased space in a building owned by Ms. Corder and her partner Frances Fields in a building across Grant Street without telling them of its plans for the property at 1800 N. Grant. Ms. Woods stated the bank's proposal would eliminate access to the loading docks and dumpsters located at the rear of the buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street. She asked if there was not a prescriptive easement that would allow continued use of Superior's property to access the dumpsters and loading docks. She also voiced fears that increased bank traffic could lead to a pedestrian accident if a bank customer exiting the teller facility turned north on the alley, between the commercial buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street. Jeanette Corder chose not to speak, deferring to her attorney Geoffrey Treece. Mr. Treece addressed the Board and stated he felt there was an issue about whether there was a prescriptive easement to allow continued access to the dumpsters and loading docks. Mr. Treece stated that he understood that was a separate issue, perhaps to be decided by the courts. He stated that he felt the proposed level of development was too intense for the small site and 5 April 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) generated traffic problems. Mr. Treece stated that he felt Superior should address the issue of continued access to the rear of the buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street to avoid possible litigation. Phil Olinghouse, owner of The Toggery at 5919 "R" Street, spoke in opposition. He also voiced concerns about continued access to the loading dock on the rear of his building. He stated that delivery trucks would have no choice but to park in the alley to unload, blocking Superior's drive-through lanes. Mr. Olinghouse stated that it was difficult to access either Cantrell Road or University Avenue from the bank site. He stated he felt Superior's proposal to go from one drive-through window to 5 was excessive. Norm Floyd asked if the site plan could be reversed so that traffic would access the bank site from the west and exit to the east. Bill Henry responded that such a proposal would funnel all of the traffic onto Grant Street, where the current proposal gave two points of exit, the alley and University Avenue. Frances Fields chose not to speak, deferri_ng.to her daughter Libby Williams. Ms. Williams voiced concerns about bank traffic turning north on the alley. She also stated that delivery trucks would block the alley and the bank's teller lanes. Ms. Williams stated that the bank's representatives had refused to meet with Ms. Fields and her tenants. ,Terry Makowski, tenant of the building at 6020 Cantrell Road, spoke in opposition. He stated he had limited access to his property that would be impacted if Superior's plans were approved. He also brought up the issue of traffic safety and presented photographs showing traffic in the area. T Mike Pierce, owner of Papa John's Pizza in the abutting "R"= Street building, spoke of his concerns regarding continued access to the dumpster and the increase in traffic on the bank site. He also stated that Superior had refused to meet with area businesses. Moise Seligman interrupted and questioned whether any board members had been to the site. William Ruck stated he wanted to hear staff's response to the issues that had been raised thus far. 6 April 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) David Hamilton, of Public Works, stated any approved variances should include the condition that Superior upgrade the alley to provide better access to Cantrell Road. He acknowledged that any regrading of the alley could further impact access to the property at 6020 Cantrell. Bill Henry confirmed Mr. Putnam's statement that the City had asked Superior Bank to come up with a plan that provided more and better stacking space at the drive -up tellers in order to address the problem of customers blocking Grant Street and Cantrell Road. Mr. Henry stated that he did not feel that there would be a large increase in customer traffic to the site just because there were more drive-through teller windows. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Henry stated that it was his opinion that Superior's plan would work the way it is proposed. Norm Floyd commented that there was a problem accessing Cantrell Road and that he felt this plan created too much traffic on the site. William Ruck asked if the Cantrell/University intersection area was an accident-prone situation. Mr. Henry responded that it was one of the top 5 accident locations in the state. He stated he felt Superior's plan would make the situation better. In response to a question from William Ruck, Mr. Henry stated that the proposed additional stacking space was a definite improvement. At William Ruck's request, Dana Carney of the Planning Staff outlined the specific variance requests. Jerry Makowski addressed the Board and questioned Mr. Henry's assessment of the traffic situation. Mr. Henry reiterated his opinion that he felt Superior's plan would improve traffic in the area. Mr. Henry stated that more teller lanes did not necessarily mean more customer traffic. He stated the City's primary concern was getting the customer traffic off of the street. Mr. Henry stated that the City had not received complaints from customers trying to exit the site, but rather about traffic stacking up entering the site. Mr. Henry stated the site may not have the most advantageous access but it has the best that it has to work with. Jan Woods reiterated her concern that more teller lanes would result in more traffic on the site. 7 April 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) Rodney Getchell, owner of Hestand's at 5915 "R" Street, spoke of his concern about having continued access to the loading dock and dumpster. William Putnam addressed the Board and stated that all that was being done was in response to the City's direction to address the problem of customers blocking Grant Street. He stated Superior had tried to locate another site in the area but could not, so the decision was made to divide the bank's operations, leaving only the drive-through facility on this site. Mr. Putnam stated that Superior had worked with staff to devise a plan that worked best. He stated the multiple lanes would spread out the customers and reduce the possibility of traffic backing into the street. Mr. Putnam stated that a title search had revealed nothing that allowed access across the bank property to reach the loading dock and dumpster on the abutting property. He stated the Chairman of the Board of Superior had expressed concern that allowing continued access across the bank property was a liability. Mr. Putnam stated that the proposal was not going to triple or quadruple business but was going to address traffic concerns related to the existing customers. Norm Floyd asked why the Bank had not met with the neighbors. The response was that the plan was in flux and the decision was made at the corporate level not to meet. Mr. Floyd commented that a meeting might help. 11 Geoffrey Treece asked if the bank was required to have all of the parking spaces shown west of the alley. Dana Carney responded that they were not but that the bank was providing extra spaces since parking was at such a premium in the Heights. Mr. Treece asked that the item be deferred to allow the neighbors to meet with Superior. Mr. Putnam responded that he could not accept a deferral because the project was behind schedule. He stated the bank was not requesting any variances that were unreasonable and had done everything requested by the City. He asked if he could have a decision. Phil Olinghouse stated the issue was stirring up the neighborhood and asked that the Board deny the request. Mr. Putnam stated the bank was not stating that it wouldn't work with the neighbors. 8 April 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) Jerry Makowski reiterated his opposition. Dana Carney reiterated the various issues for the Board. He noted that the buildings at 5901-5921 "R" Street were built with a reduced rear yard setback of 0 feet as a result of Board of Adjustment approval in 1962. He noted that the 1962 plan for those buildings showed service entrances and dock access to be taken from the alley, not from the abutting property. Mr. Carney noted that the City's traffic engineer had voiced definite support for Superior's proposed plan. He outlined the particular variance requests and noted that the bank could erect a fence and landscaping along its northern perimeter, blocking off the loading docks and dumpsters, with or without the Board's approval. Norm Floyd thanked Mr. Carney for pointing out what could be done. He stated he still felt that Superior was proposing to overbuild the lot and that he had to oppose the issue. A motion was made to approve all requested variances subject to compliance with the conditions recommended by staff and the additional condition proposed by Public Works that the alley be improved to the City's specifications. The vote was 2 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Richburg). Since the item failed to receive 3 votes either in favor or against the issue, the item was deferred to the April 30, 2001 meeting. William Ruck voiced his opinion that increased traffic was his primary concern. He stated he felt there would be an increase in traffic if the Board approved the variances and that the bank should either find another site or reduce the size of the proposed facility. Gary Langlais stated that he felt it would be advantageous for all parties to meet prior to the item returning to the Board. Fred Gray stated there were some issues that could not be handled by the Board of Adjustment. He also encouraged a meeting to be arranged between the parties. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 301 2001) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested 0 April 30, 2001 Item No.: A (Cont.) withdrawal of the item. Staff informed the Board that the site plan had been revised so that there were no longer any variances. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 10