Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6751 Staff AnalysisSeptember 27, 1999 Item No.: 7 File No.: Z-6751 Owner: ERC Properties Address: 24800 Chenal Parkway Description: Lot 4A, Northwest Territory Addition Zoned: MF -18 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area regulations of Section 36-258 and the buffer requirements of Section 36-522. Justification: The topography of the site is extreme and the positioning of the buildings and parking is critical in minimizing the amount of earthwork and retaining walls that will be on the site as well as providing a number of accessible units. Present Use of Property: Vacant tract Proposed Use of Property: New apartment development; 10 buildings, 112 units Staff Report: A. Public:Works Issues: 1. Redesign parking lot and entrance to satisfy Traffic Engineering requirements. 2. Eliminate island on the driveway and provide full access to Chenal Parkway. 3. Redesign parking lot to provide back out spaces. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Easement for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. September 27, 1999 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) B. Staff Analysis• The applicant proposes to build a new multifamily development on the wooded, MF -18 zoned, 7.1 acre tract located at 24800 Chenal Parkway. The development consists of 10, 2-3 story buildings containing 112 units as well as the associated parking and driveways. Building No. 6, located near the southeast corner of the property is proposed to have a setback from the eastern property line of 25 feet. Building 6 is 32 feet in height and Section 36-258 of the code requires all interior yards to have a depth equal to the height of any proposed building or structure. The applicant proposes a buffer on the north (rear) perimeter ranging from 8.0 - 10.87 - 107 feet in depth. Section 36-522 of the code requires a land use buffer on the rear of this site of 24 feet, with a minimum depth of 6 feet. Staff is supportive of the requested variances. The minor height variance of 7 feet for building No. 6 should have no impact on adjacent properties. The large, 0-3 zoned tract adjacent to the east is heavily wooded and undeveloped. On this 7.1 acre site, the difference between a height of 25 feet and 32 feet for one building is probably negligible to the naked eye. The building height permitted on the adjacent 0-3 zoned property is 45 feet, with the ability to go to 60 feet in height with increased setbacks. A 100 foot wide Entergy easement traverses the rear portion of this tract, rendering 20% of the site virtually unsuitable for any purpose other than parking. The power company limits the types of landscaping materials which can be planted in this area. The easement has been cut and cleared for the overhead transmission lines by Entergy. The large area of R-2 zoned property adjacent to the rear of this site is currently undeveloped. The proposed buffer does exceed the minimum ordinance requirement of 6 feet. A 6 foot tall opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings are required along the perimeter to screen this development from the adjacent R-2 zoned property. Some minor adjustments will need to be made to the site plan to address Public Works Comments related to the parking lot and driveway design. 2 September 27, 1999 Item No.: 7 (Cont. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested building height variance for Building No. 6 and the buffer depth variance on the rear perimeter subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances (with the exception of the buffer depth on the northern perimeter). 2. Compliance with Public Works Comments including any variance of those requirements as may be granted by the Board of Directors. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (SEPTEMBER 27, 1999) Frank Riggins and Paul Hill were present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated that he had met at the site with three of the Board members on September 26, 1999 to view the property and to get a better concept of the issues. Mr. Carney stated that the merits of the case were not discussed and any issues raised by the Board members at the site were passed on to the applicant. Frank Riggins addressed the Board and explained the justification for the variances. Mr. Riggins stated that the grade of the site exceeded 10% and that significant grading of the property would have to occur to accommodate the development. He stated that only two buildings would not require retaining walls, building 6 being one. Mr. Riggins stated that moving building 6 would require additional grading and retaining walls and could affect the handicap accessibility of the building. Mr. Riggins described the 100 foot wide power line easement along the rear perimeter of the site. He stated that the buildings have a minimum setback of 100 feet from the rear property line and that a "fair amount" of green space was provided between the buildings and the rear property line. Mr. Riggins stated that whatever landscaping and screening is possible would be installed along the rear perimeter. Mr. Riggins stated that the 7 parking spaces along the entry driveway could be angled to further reduce their impact on the driveway but that he would rather not remove them, 3 September 27, 1999 Item No.: 7 (Cont. as requested by Public Works. He noted that the parking spaces were on the egress side of the driveway so they would not affect traffic entering the site and possibly causing vehicles to back up into the street. Mr. Riggins commented that moving building 8 to change the parking in front of that building would impact the stormwater detention area located behind that building. A discussion then followed regarding the level of site plan review that occurred at the Planning Commission versus that at the Board of Adjustment. It was noted that the staff review by Planning and Public Works was the same in either case. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Riggins stated that the applicant was trying to reduce cost and limit grading in locating building 6. The applicant, staff and the Board then spent some time reviewing the site plan. Mr. Riggins pointed out the proposed stormwater detention areas and discussed the grading plan. After reviewing the Plan, Fred Gray asked Tad Borkowski, of Public Works, if the parking near the entrance of the site was the only real, unresolved issue. Mr. Borkowski responded that it appeared to be so. Mr. Riggins asked the Board to approve the item subject to his working with Public Works to resolve the parking issue. He stated that the applicant was looking to start the project in October 1999. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, noted that the Board could attach such a condition. In response to a question from William Ruck, the applicant stated that building 6 would either be reduced in height or moved to provide the required setback, if the variance was denied. Tad Borkowski noted that any hillside cuts exceeding 30 feet in height would have to be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Riggins stated that he was not aware of any cuts which exceeded 30 feet. During a discussion of drainage issues, Mr. Riggins stated that the site would be designed to conform to city stormwater/drainage codes. Norm Floyd asked about site lighting. Paul Hill responded that the developer and the seller had specific requirements regarding 4 September 27, 1999 Item No.: 7 (Cont.) lighting. He stated that the light poles would be 18 feet tall, with downward aimed lighting. In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Mr. Hill stated that the rear property line was contiguous with the 100 foot easement. Mr. Hill stated that the landscaping and screening in the area would be designed to meet the power company's regulations for planting in the easement. Mr. Hill stated that the applicant would be sensitive to retaining existing trees on the site. In response to a question from staff, Mr. Hill stated that he would prefer a separate vote on the variance issues. He reiterated that building 6 would be either redesigned or relocated to comply with the code if that variance was denied. In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Mr. Riggins and Mr. Hill des-cribed the parking lot in the rear of the site. They stated that the parking lot would have a slight slope, not exceeding 5%. Mr. Hill made note of the large islands of landscaping in the rear parking lot and surmised that the total amount of landscaping associated with that parking lot exceeded the code requirement. A motion was made to approve the requested building setback variance subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" and subject to the applicant resolving the parking design issues at the front of the site with Public Works. The motion was denied with a vote of 1 aye, 3 noes and 1 absent. A motion was made to approve the reduction in the buffer on the rear perimeter subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" and subject to the applicant resolving the parking design issues at the front of the site with Public Works. During the subsequent discussion, it was determined that failure to resolve the parking design issue would require the item to return to the Board. The vote on the motion was 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent, approving the buffer variance. 5