Loading...
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