Board of Zoning Appeals approves variances for Greenwood Place senior housing on West County Line Road

The Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals on Aug. 25 approved seven variances for Greenwood Place, a proposed age‑restricted residential development on parcels addressed 3361, 3425 and 3471 West County Line Road, by unanimous vote (5‑0).

Board action followed a presentation by Crossroads Engineers and the project architect, and a staff report that recommended approval for five of the seven requests and noted concerns about transparency on certain building elevations. The board admitted the evidence on the record before taking individual votes on each variance and directed the city corporation counsel to draft formal findings for the board’s decision.

The project team described site constraints that shaped the requests. The clubhouse was sited deep on the lot to accommodate stormwater detention, producing a requested increase in the maximum front‑yard setback from the ordinance limit of 80 feet to 229 feet. The applicant also sought relief from several architectural standards tied to masonry coverage and window‑glass transparency for multiple building types, and requested permission to locate a single trash enclosure in what is technically a front yard relative to the private access drive.

Key approvals and conditions: - Increase maximum front‑yard setback (clubhouse) from 80 feet to 229 feet: approved with no conditions (motion carried 5‑0). - Reduce mortared masonry on a front elevation from 50% to 17%: approved with two conditions — garage doors shall have architectural design with some transparency similar to exhibit E, and final plans must substantially conform to the elevations in exhibit E (5‑0). - Reduce mortared masonry from 50% to 26%: approved conditioned on final plans substantially matching the elevations shown in exhibit E (5‑0). - Reduce mortared masonry from 50% to 28%: approved with the same final‑plan condition (5‑0). - Reduce transparency on specified front elevations: the board approved a reduction to 9% (rather than the 2% requested on the docket) after the applicant agreed to add glazing on certain elevations (5‑0). - Reduce transparency on specified side elevations: the board approved a reduction to 6% from 20% for the applicable elevations, with the explicit exclusion of the clubhouse from this particular request (5‑0). The applicant committed to increase the most constrained four‑plex elevation to 9% transparency by adding windows. - Allow a trash enclosure in the front yard: approved with the staff condition that only one dumpster is permitted and it be located as shown on exhibit C (5‑0).

Planning staff and board discussion Planning staff told the board they had provided favorable recommendations for five of the seven variances and explained that the masonry percentages varied by building type and roof/gable configurations. Staff staff noted transparency concerns, especially on corner buildings and larger multi‑unit buildings facing County Line Road. Staff suggested flipping some building orientations could address transparency requirements but the applicant said parcel depth, easements and utilities made that layout infeasible.

Project team comments Tom Montgomery, the project architect, described functional constraints in residential unit layouts — bathrooms, closets and bedroom walls — that limit window placement on side elevations. He told the board the design team could increase glass on one constrained four‑plex elevation to reach 9% transparency by adding larger windows. West Jackson, representing the developer, said garages had to face County Line Road to fit on the parcels, which influenced the requested architectural variances.

Next steps After the votes the board directed the corporation counsel to draft the written findings reflecting the decisions. The approvals were contingent on the conditions described above and on final plans that substantially match the elevations admitted as exhibits at the hearing.

Why it matters The variances alter how the development will appear from County Line Road and nearby residential neighborhoods and affect materials and window amounts on multiple building types. The board’s conditions require the final design to conform substantially to the elevations the applicant presented to the board.