boa_12 17 2020LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AGENDA PROCEDURE
DECEMBER 17, 2020
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
II.Approval of the Minutes of the November 19, 2020
meeting of the Board of Adjustment
Ill. Presentation of Consent Agenda
IV.Presentation of Hearing Items
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 2020
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being five (5) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the November 19, 2020 meeting of the Board of
Adjustment
The Minutes of the November 19, 2020 meeting were
approved.
Members Present: Frank Allison - Chairman
Richard Bertram -Vice Chair
Justin Grinder
Joe Justus
Katherine Lashley
Members Absent: None
City Attorney Present: Sherri Latimer
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ABBREVIATED AGENDA
DECEMBER 17, 2020
4:00 P.M.
I. OLD BUSINESS:
No Old Business
II. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Z-9550 Lot 4, Tract 1, Chenal Valley Addition
2. Z-7091-13 801 Brookside Drive
3. Z-9549 2909 N. Pierce Street
DECEMBER 17, 2020
ITEM NO. 1 Z-9550
File No.: Z-9550
Owner: PotlatchDeltic Real Estate, LLC
Applicant: White-Daters & Associates, Inc., Attn: Timothy Daters
Address: Lot 4, Tract 1 Chenal Valley
Description: Northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road
Zoned: C-3 (General Commercial District)
Variance Requested: Variance from the building height provisions of Section 36-
301 to permit primary structures to exceed the maximum of
35 ft. in height as allowable on C-3 zoned property.
Justification: Property owner would like a variance to allow the construction
of a four (4)-story building. The applicant's justification is
presented in the attached letter dated October 12, 2020.
Present Use: Undeveloped
Proposed Use: Commercial (Bank)
STAFF REPORT
A.Planning and Development Civil Engineering:
1.The Rahling Road driveway does not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The driveway spacing is a minimum
of 300 ft. on arterial streets from intersections and other driveways. The width of
driveway must not exceed 36 feet and be designed as right-in/right-out only.
2.No engineering comment on building height variance.
B.Buffering and Landscape:
1.Any new site development must comply with the City's minimal landscape and
buffer ordinance requirements and the Chenal Overlay District.
2.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or
larger.
C.Building Codes:
No Comment.
D.Staff Analysis:
The C-3 zoned subject property located at the northeast corner of Chenal Parkway
and Rahling Road contains approximately 3.61 acres. The largest neighboring
property to the north is undeveloped and zoned O-2. There is a smaller parcel,
1
DECEMBER 17, 2020
ITEM NO. 1 Z-9550
developed as a residential complex also located on the northern boundary zoned
MF-24. The adjoining property to the east is zoned 0-2 and is also currently
undeveloped. The west boundary is bordered by the Chenal Parkway right-of-way
and the south edge of the property lays adjacent to the Rahling Road right-of-way.
The property located across Rahling Road on the southeast corner of the
intersection is currently undeveloped and zoned PCD. The southwest corner of the
intersection is zoned C-2 and occupied by the Promenade Shopping Center while
the northwest corner is zoned C-3 and accommodates the Bank of the Ozarks
building.
The applicant proposes to construct a four-story bank. There will be surface parking
on all 4 sides of the building and proposed site access from both Rah ling Road and
Chenal Parkway. The applicant has stated that building height will be 56 feet from
the first floor to the ceiling of the 4th floor with the exterior elevation rising to the top
of the parapet at 66 feet 4 inches. This proposal will exceed the maximum allowable
building height in areas zoned C-3.
Sec. 36-301 (d) states, "No building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall
exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet." The applicant is requesting a variance to
allow for a 66 feet 4 inches building height. To staffs knowledge, the development
will comply with all other ordinance required development criteria.
Staff is supportive of the height variance and feels that the proposed request is
reasonable. The proposed bank will be set back over 100 feet from the Chenal
Parkway right-of-way and approximately 175 feet from the Rahling Road right-of
way. The building will also be set back approximately 150 to 200 feet from the
adjacent O-2 and MF-24 zoned parcels. Additionally, the height variance will be
compatible with the existing bank building located on the northwest corner of this
intersection which received a height variance in 2006 and was constructed to a
height of 75 feet.
E.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to exceed the 35 foot
maximum typically permitted in C-3 zoning and allow the structure to be constructed
to a building height not to exceed 66 feet 4 inches.
Board of Adjustment (December 17, 2020)
The applicant was present. There were no persons present registered in opposition. Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of approval as outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above. There was no further discussion.
There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion was
Seconded. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
2
DECEMBER 17, 2020
ITEM NO. 2 Z-7091-B
File No.: Z-7091-B
Owner: Presbyterian Villages, Inc.
Applicant: White-Daters & Associates, Inc., Attn: Brian Dale
Address: 801 Brookside Drive
Description: North end of Brookside Drive, East of Reservoir Road
Zoned: PRD (Planned Residential Development) W / Application
pending to rezone to R-5
Variance Requested: Variance from the building height provisions of Section 36-
259 to permit primary structures to exceed the maximum of
35 ft. in height as allowable on R-5 zoned property.
Justification: Applicant request a building height variance to allow the
construction of a 50-foot height structure. Justification per
attached letter dated October 27, 2020.
Present Use: Undeveloped
Proposed Use: Multi-Family Development
STAFF REPORT
A.Planning and Development Civil Engineering:
1.No engineering comments on the building height variance
2.A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Sec. 8-283
prior to construction.
3.A substantial area of the site lies within the regulated floodway and floodplain of
Grassy Flats Creek. The minimum finished floor elevation of at least 1 ft. or more
above the base flood elevation for all structures is required to be shown on plats
and grading plans.
4.An access easement should be provided for vehicle turnaround.
B.Buffering and Landscape:
1.Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2.Normally multi-family developments would require screening and buffers
adjacent to the more restrictive R-2 zoned property to the east. Due to the
undeveloped, heavily vegetated, city owned flood plain property to the east staff
feels that the landscape perimeter a minimum of nine (9) feet in width as shown
on the site plan will be adequate.
1
DECEMBER 17, 2020
ITEM NO. 2 (CONT.) Z-7091-B
3.All ground or roof mounted mechanical systems shall be screened from abutting
properties and streets. Any trash receptacles or pickup shall be oriented away
from a primary street side of the property and screened from the public right-of
way.
4.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger.
C.Building Codes:
No Comment.
D.Staff Analysis:
The subject property located at 801 Brookside contains approximately 11.6 acres
and is currently zoned PRO, however an application to rezone the property to R-5
was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on December 3, 2020.
The surrounding properties are zoned M-24 to the north, PD-R to the west and O3
to the south. The properties to the east are zoned O-3 and R-2. The R-2 property to
the east is owned by the City of Little Rock and undeveloped due to being located
in the flood zone of Grassy Flat Creek. In addition, this existing waterway is
dominated by an average of 200 foot width of undisturbed mature trees and
vegetation which separates the existing single-family neighborhood to the east.
The current landowner has the property under contract with a developer proposing
to construct a multi-family development. The building elevations that have been
submitted indicate a four-story complex proposing a maximum fifty-foot building
height. Should the R-5 zoning be approved these structures will exceed the
maximum allowable height regulation of 35 feet.
Sec. 36-259(c) of the Little Rock Municipal Code states, "No building hereafter
erected or structurally altered shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet."
The proposed complex indicates six separate buildings labeled as phase 1 thru
phase 6. The buildings and associated parking noted as phase 5 and phase 6 are
located along a new entry drive that connects Brookside Drive to the development.
These two buildings will be located directly east of the existing Brookside Health and
Rehab building. This portion of the site is currently being utilized as unpaved
overflow parking. The other phases of the project will be located to the north of the
first two buildings and positioned to the center and the east sides of the property.
The four remaining buildings will be arranged around a central common space
occupied by a swimming pool, dog park and mail facilities. A gated entry will also
serve the residence and parking which surrounds the phase 1 club building and the
remaining three residential complexes.
2
DECEMBER 17, 2020
ITEM NO. 2 (CONT.) Z-7091-B
The setbacks for the fo ur centrally located buildings are noted to be 84.0 feet on the
south, 86.0 feet the east and 86. 7 feet to the north. The setback on the west side of
the property is shown at approximately 305 feet.
The maximum density for R-5 zoning is thirty-six units per acre the proposed density
for this project indicates twenty-seven units per acre. Existing trees and vegetation
will remain in the flood plain east of the subject property. Staff feels that the existing
MF-24 development to the north, the PR-D condominiums and sizeable setback to
the west, and the rehab facility to the south are compatible with this proposed
development.
Based on the above assessment and analysis, staff finds the requested variances
to be reasonable.
E.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to exceed the 35 foot
maximum typically permitted in R-5 zoning and allow structures constructed to a
maximum of 50 feet in height.
Board of Adjustment (December 17, 2020)
Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.
Representing the applicant, attorney Buck Gibson emphasized the following points: 1) the
proposal lies hundreds of feet from nearby residents, and 2) existing and proposed trees
separate the proposed development from nearby residents, and 3) the subject property
had previously been approved as a four-story development.
Lee Beverly expressed opposition and presented PowerPoint slides to emphasize that
other nearby buildings are generally limited to two stories, proposed buildings would be
visible above vegetative barriers, proposed occupants would have views down and into
adjacent residences, and the proposed number of units/occupants exceeds the previous
proposal. He pointed to other developments bordered by I-430, the Arkansas River,
University Avenue and 1-630 saying there are only four (4) four-story buildings within said
border. He further stated that, unlike the other four-story buildings, the subject site is not
within a high-density area. He expressed concerns regarding traffic, drainage and
flooding, sewer capacity and noise.
Mary J. Lowman addressed the Board as an observer, expressing neither support nor
opposition.
Brian Tinnermon, Shea Drive, spoke in opposition, stating no need fo r a structure of this
proposed size, citing numerous existing vacancies in the area. He expressed concern for
excess fill/grading around the flood zone. He expressed concern with the views to the
proposed development from his own residence. He cited inadequate screening,
decreased privacy, and decreased property values among his chief concerns.
3
DECEMBER 17, 2020
ITEM NO. 2 (CONT.) Z-7091-B
Ann Parat spoke in opposition, stating the proposal would negatively affect the park like
feel of her back yard and diminish her quality of life.
Jackie Kaufman, Leawood resident, spoke in opposition, stating R-5 zoning is
inappropriate, drainage will be problematic, and the proposed height will invade neighbor
privacy.
Mary Jo Blanchard spoke in opposition via Webex and stated her concerns had been
addressed.
John Robbins, Arrow Brook Court, spoke in opposition. He took issue with previous
representations, stating more residences exist to the east than the other three combined
directions. He expressed concern for reduction of his property value.
Debbie Ray, Shea Drive, expressed opposition.
Megan Thornton spoke via Webex and stated her concerns had been addressed.
Ben Sims, Reservoir Heights board member, spoke in opposition via Webex. He
expressed concern for reduced woods and diminished scenery for existing and future
Reservoir Heights residents.
Attorney Buck Gibson again spoke in support of the application. He said the proposal
conforms to the city Master Street Plan, will maintain attractive views for nearby residents,
will add new trees to existing vegetation, will comply with the Future Land Use Plan which
prescribes high-density multi-family on the subject site, and proposes four-story
structures similar to the four stories previously approved.
Chairman Allison asked Brian Dale of White-Daters, the applicant, if the proposed grade
elevations near the 100-year floodplain are known. Dale responded by estimating earthen
fill of five to ten feet above existing grade along the eastern edge of the subject site. Dale
assured the Board the proposal will conform with City of LR and FEMA requirements, with
finish floor elevations to be at least one foot above base flood elevation. He stated his
preference for maintaining finished floor elevations of two feet above base flood elevation.
Board Member Lashley asked to see an image of the previously approved site plan [from
approximately 2001.] Buck Gibson pointed out several differences between the older
plan and the current proposal, stating the current design is less impactive to surrounding
neighbors.
Board Member Grinder requested an explanation of proposed buildings near the
southeast portion ["tail" portion] of the site. Project developer/purchaser Blake Wiggins
stated he had spoken to residents near the "tail" and assured them he would take
measures to limit height and maintain or install screening. Wiggins estimated the "tail"
portion would develop significantly further into the future and be limited to two story
buildings. Member Grinder inquired as to the possibility of setting a height limit for the
buildings in the "tail."
4
DECEMBER 17, 2020
ITEM NO. 2 (CON'T.) Z-7091-B
Board Member Lashley asked if there would be vegetative barrier between the parking
along the east edge of the development, and Wiggins responded, "yes."
Lee Beverly again spoke, asking what assurance the City or neighbors have that the
developer will follow through with statements and promises made during this meeting?
Staff explained "conditions of approval" are one method for such assurance. The
Planning Director reminded the Board to limit condition(s), if any, specifically to the
building height variance requested. He stated screening and buffering are relevant to the
variance request. The Director also explained the typical site plan review and approval
process.
Board Member Grinder made a motion to approve the requested height variance, with the
added condition that buildings iri the southeast "tail" portion of the site be limited to two
stories.
The motion was seconded. The vote was 2 ayes, 3 noes, and 0 absent. The motion
failed, and the application was denied.
5
DECEMBER 17, 2020
ITEM NO. 3 Z-9549
File No.: Z-9549
Owner: Brad and Jodi Thomas
Applicant: Hope Consulting, Inc., Attn: Jonathan Hope
Address: 2909 North Pierce Street
Description: The South 10 feet of Lot 2, All of Lot 3, and the North 35 feet of
Lot 4, Block 10 Parkview Addition
Zoned: R-3 (Single-Family District)
Variance Requested: Variance from the area provisions of Section 36-156 to
permit more than 30% coverage of the rear yard for an
accessory building.
Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in the attached letter
dated October 14, 2020.
Present Use: R-3
Proposed Use: R-3
STAFF REPORT
A.Planning and Development Civil Engineering:
No Comment.
B.Buffering and Landscape:
No Comment.
C.Building Codes:
No Comment.
D.Staff Analysis:
The R-3 zoned property is located in the Heights Overlay District at 2909 N. Pierce
Street and occupied by a two-story brick single family home. The adjacent and
surrounding properties are also occupied by single family residences. A driveway
located on Pierce Street serves as access. The rear yard is surrounded by an
existing privacy fence and there is a small accessory structure located in the
southeast corner of this backyard space. An existing deck is also attached to the
rear of the house.
The applicant is proposing to install an in-ground swimming pool/spa with an
associated pool deck in the rear yard. The rear yard space is approximately 2,375
square feet in area and is currently occupied with an existing 480 square foot
covered patio structure. The proposed pool and associated deck are indicated on
the site plan to provide an additional 1,037.4 square feet of non-permeable area.
With the existing structure and the proposed pool addition the backyard will be
comprised of approximately 64 percent of coverage exceeding the maximum code
allowance of 30 percent.
1
DECEMBER 17, 2020
ITEM NO. 3 (CON'T.) Z-9549
The deck of the proposed pool will be located 9 feet 3 inches from the north property
line with an approximate 7-foot-wide surface before reaching the pool edge. The
east edge of this proposed deck is 4 feet from the property line with an approximate
5-foot width before reaching the pool. There is a retaining wall on the north property
line varying in height from approximately 3 to 6 feet with the subject property
occupying the higher elevation. The wall increases in height running from east to
west and then returns to grade at Pierce Street.
Sec. 36-156(a)(2)c states, "Accessory buildings or structures in the R-1 through R-
4A districts ... may not occupy more than thirty (30) percent of the required rear
yard area ... Swimming pools and all appurtenant structures both above ground and
below grade of adjacent yard area shall be construed to be accessory structures
and conform to the standards of this section ... "
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Staff views the rear yard coverage of
this existing small space as minor compared with the buildable capacity available to
the property owner. The proposed in-ground pool would have less of an impact on
the surrounding properties than an above ground structure. This proposal is similar
to other neighborhood installations, the additional backyard coverage cannot be
viewed from neighboring properties, and presents no foreseeable adverse effects to
the neighboring residences.
E.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested coverage variance per the attached
site plan, subject to a building permit being obtained for all construction.
Board of Adjustment (December 17, 2020)
The applicant was present. There were no persons present registered in opposition. Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of approval as outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above. There was no further discussion.
There was a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion was
Seconded. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent.
2
DECEMBER 17, 2020
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10
p.m.
Date:
Chairman Secretary