Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Minutes 12 24 20DECEMBER 17, 2020 ITEM NO. 2 Z-7091-B 1 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. DECEMBER 17, 2020 ITEM NO. 2 (CON’T.) Z-7091-B 2 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 PRD, 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. DECEMBER 17, 2020 ITEM NO. 2 (CON’T.) Z-7091-B 3 The setbacks for the four 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 borde red 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 ne ed 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 i nadequate screening, decreased privacy, and decreased property values among his chief concerns. DECEMBER 17, 2020 ITEM NO. 2 (CON’T.) Z-7091-B 4 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 existi ng 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 t he buildings in the “tail.” DECEMBER 17, 2020 ITEM NO. 2 (CON’T.) Z-7091-B 5 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 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.