Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.23.20 Minutes For Completed Staff RptBoard 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 I-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 for 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. 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 Williams stated he had spoken to residents near the “tail” and assured them he would take measures to limit height and maintain or install screening. Williams 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.” Member Lashley asked if there would be vegetative barrier between the parking along the east edge of the development, and Williams 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. Austin Grinder made a motion to approve the requested height variance, with the added condition that buildings in 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.