MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 – CITY COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, FIRST FLOOR OF CITY HALL AT SIXTH AND MASSACHUSETTS STREET, LAWRENCE, KANSAS*
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Hicks
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Guntert
*It was established on the afternoon of September 2nd that a quorum would not be available to conduct the meeting that evening. Staff contacted one of the available board members, Mr. Hicks, by telephone to call the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. Mr. Hicks formally recognized the lack of a quorum and recessed the meeting to September 9, 2004, in the City Commission Meeting Room.
The meeting was recessed at 6:45 p.m. on September 2, 2004.
Meeting was reconvened at 6:30 p.m., September 9, 2004 in the City Commission Meeting Room.
Members present: Mr. Herndon, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Goans, Mr. Santee and Mr. Lane
Staff present: Mr. Guntert, Mr. Tully and Ms. Saker
ITEM NO. 1: COMMUNICATIONS
· Letter of support from East Lawrence Neighborhood Association for Item 4
· Request for extension of variances granted for Delaware Street Commons
· Request for extension of variances granted for Alek’s Auto
CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRAL REQUESTS
There were no deferrals to consider.
DECLARATION OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS/ABSTENSION
No ex parte communications were stated.
No abstentions were indicated.
ITEM NO. 2: MINUTES
The following changes were requested to the minutes of the August 5, 2004 meeting:
· Revision of language in abstention section
· Removal of repetitive language (“simply”) in Item 1
· Addition of clarifying language on page 9 regarding apparent violation of previous approvals
· Correction of several typographical errors
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Lane to approve the August 5, 2004 minutes as revised.
Motion carried 5-0-1, with Mr. Hicks abstaining due to his absence from the August meeting.
Swearing in of witnesses.
ITEM NO. 3: 637 TENNESSEE STREET
B-08-20-04: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1709.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. The variance is from the provisions in Section 20-608 of said City Code, which requires a 30’ rear yard setback in the RS-2 District. The applicant is asking to allow a minimum rear yard of 14’ from the property line and 22’ from the center of the alley. The request will allow for an approximate 12’ x 29’ addition along the back of the existing residence at 637 Tennessee Street. The request is for the following legally described property: The South ½ of Lot 37 & all of Lot 39 on Tennessee Street in the Original Townsite of the City of Lawrence. Submitted by Joe Fix for Achievement Place for Girls, Inc., property owner of record.
This application was withdrawn.
ITEM NO. 4: 830-832 & 846 PENNSYLVANIA STREET AND 716 EAST 9TH STREET
B-08-21-04: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1709.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. The first variance is from the provisions in Section 20-807 of said City Code, which requires a 25’ building setback when abutting a street right-of-way. The applicant is requesting a reduction of this setback to 0’ from the right-of-way, matching the existing building setback on the property. The second variance is from the provisions of Section 20-1216 of said City Code requiring parking areas to be set back from a right-of-way a minimum of 15’. This request is to allow no setback for the pavement associated with the building at 846 Pennsylvania Street and for the street trees to be planted in the right-of-way. The next two variances are from the provisions of Sections 20-1215 and 20-1217 of said City Code that set forth the standards for paving, markings and barriers to be used in parking and driveways. The applicant is asking for a 5-year variance from these standards. The final variances pertain to the provisions for parking lot landscaping, screening and street tree requirements described in Sections 20-1214, 20-14A04.6, and 20-14A04.3 of said City Code. The applicant is requesting a waiver of these requirements for a period of 5 years. The subject property is located at 830-832 Pennsylvania Street, 846 Pennsylvania Street, and 716 East 9th Street. It is legally described as: Lots 30, 32, 34 & 36 on Pennsylvania Street and Lots 17, 19, 21 & 23 on Delaware Street, all lots in the Original Townsite of the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Submitted by Stan Hernly with Hernly Associates, Inc., for Harold C. and Caroline B. Shephard, c/o Roger N. Harris; and, Pennsylvania Street Investors, LLC, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully introduced the item, a request for several variances, some with a 5-year sunset, as follows:
Permanent requests –
1. Reduce required building setback from the public right-of-way from 25’ to 0’ feet to match existing conditions; and
2. Reduce the required parking lot setback from 15’ to 0’ and allow placement of street trees in the public right-of-way to match existing conditions.
Staff recommended approval of the permanent variances, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Time-limited –
1. Allow construction of a temporary parking lot, with no curbing, no landscaped islands, substandard surfacing and no wheel stops;
2. Revise requirement of 1 shade tree per 2 islands to allow turf instead of trees; and
3. Allow placement of no street trees along 9th Street
The applicant requested a 5-year sunset on the temporary variances. Staff recommended approval of the temporary variances with a 3-year sunset, based on the time limit set for previous temporary variances, and subject to conditions as listed in the Staff Report.
The current project included the demolition of the existing metal shed on the property at 846 Pennsylvania. A permanent addition to the primary structure was proposed in the footprint of the existing shed.
The applicant proposed removal of two butler-type metal buildings located at 830-832 Pennsylvania and 716 E. 9th Street, with no new construction proposed at this time.
The temporary variances related to parking lot improvements were intended to allow retention of the parking area in its existing state until overall redevelopment of the entire area could occur. It was noted that an existing mature tree was proposed for retention with a protective buffer area.
It was clarified that code allowed the placement of street trees in the public right-of-way, provided the trees were no more than 30’ from the curb.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Stan Hernly, Hernly Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Hernly showed a draft version of the plan for the overall area, showing how the requested variances would fit into this plan. He explained the applicant had not yet been able to negotiate purchase of the entire area and made these variance requests to allow redevelopment of the properties he currently owned. The financial return on these properties would then assist in the purchase of the “left-over” parcels and redevelopment of the entire area could occur.
The site plan for this portion of the overall area was submitted in June 2004, and issues were raised about stormwater drainage and parking lot access. It was established that the parking lot would have to be permanently improved to serve the portions of the area the applicant proposed to redevelop. This was complicated by the intended future redevelopment of the entire area. The applicant asked permission to make temporary improvements to the parking lot. The lot would be “easily upgraded” to permanent improvement standards with the addition of city-standard pavement and curbing when the entire area was redeveloped. Access to the temporary lot was proposed at 9th Street, so the alley access would not need to be improved at this time.
Mr. Hernly said the permanent variances requested were to recognize existing conditions and were necessary because of the proposed significant change in use.
It was clarified that the temporary allowance to place no trees along 9th Street anticipated the eventual redevelopment of the lot(s) along 9th Street. This would require removal and replacement of any landscaping that was placed now.
It was noted that the expected planned development would encompass the entire area and would deal with existing 0’ setbacks. It was verified where these 0’ setbacks were proposed.
Mr. Hernly responded to questioning that the only new construction proposed within the requested setbacks would match the footprint of the existing shed at 846 Pennsylvania. The other setbacks were existing conditions and no new construction was currently proposed at 830-832 Pennsylvania or 716 E. 9th Street. Staff’s conditions included a statement that the approved 0’ setbacks applied only to the properties stated in this application, implying that construction on any other parcel in the area would have to acquire its own variance or build to the required setbacks.
The Commission discussed that the temporary lot would be designed for permanent improvement to city standards in the future. However, if the other area lots were not purchased and/or were not redeveloped, the temporary parking area would be an improvement from the existing “very non-compliant” parking area in front of 846 Pennsylvania. Staff’s recommended conditions would require the permanent improvement of the lot when the temporary variances expired, regardless of the redevelopment of other lots.
There was discussion about Staff’s recommendation that the time limited variances be approved for 3 years instead of the 5 years requested by the applicant. It was discussed that, because of economic concerns, it might be appropriate to approve the 5-year time limit. It was pointed out that the applicant was also working with the city on needed public improvements, which might also require additional time. Mr. Hernly said that, if the redevelopment of other area lots was not in process in 3 years, the applicant might at least have a better idea at that time if such redevelopment was possible.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ed Tato, President of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, stated the ELNA support of the project as proposed, and explained three concerns.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board discussed alternate wording to clarify that these variances apply only to the properties listed in the application and do not address the future redevelopment of other properties in any way.
There was discussion about a three-year sunset for the temporary variances compared to a five-year sunset. It was suggested that a three-year expiration date would provide an opportunity for the Board to see how the project was progressing and evaluate whether an extension was appropriate. Mr. Tully explained that a new Development Code would be in place in three years that put variance extension at the discretion of the Planning Director. If the Board wanted to ensure the project would come back before them, this should be explicitly stated in the motion.
It was discussed that a five-year sunset might prevent the need for a new hearing in three years and would show good faith in the applicant’s efforts.
It was suggested that approval of the temporary variances should be conditioned in such a way that permanent improvements would be required at the end of three/five years, even if redevelopment of the other area lots did not occur.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Herndon, seconded by Mr. Hicks to approve all variances as requested, based on the analysis of the Five Criteria provided in the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 5: MISCELLANEOUS
A. Consider a request from Rich Minder, Treasurer for Delaware Street Commons co-housing project for a 90-day extension of variances previously approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Hicks to approve a 90-day extension to the variances approved for Delaware Street Commons.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0
B. Consider a request from C.L. Maurer for Alek Plotnikov, property owner of record, requesting an extension of the variance granted April 1, 2004 by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Mr. Tully explained in response to questioning that the Board had approved a variance in 2002, conditional upon City Commission approval of a site plan. By 2004, the property owner had constructed a driveway located approximately 18’ south from its approved location, and the City Commission had recently denied a site plan that reflected this driveway placement.
A new site plan was anticipated showing the driveway closer to its approved state in 2002. In Staff’s opinion, it was appropriate for the Board to extend the variance, subject to the same condition (site plan approval) as their original action.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Hicks, seconded by Mr. Goans to approve a 90-day extension to the variances granted for Alek’s Auto.
Motion carried 5-0-1, with Chairman Herndon abstaining.
C. Consider any other business to come before the Board.
Chairman Herndon gave an update on his ongoing communications with Mayor Rundle regarding the appropriateness of past Board actions. He explained the Mayor had expressed concern that the Board was not acting within the boundaries of their authority.
The Mayor’s primary concern appeared to be the firm application of all Five Criteria and findings of fact to all Board approvals, in addition to actions taken that were not within the Board’s purview.
Mayor Rundle had communicated to Chairman Herndon that he (Rundle) would continue to look into the matter and would forward additional comments or concerns in the future.
The Board discussed their reliance upon Staff’s written analysis of the Five Criteria provided in each Staff Report, as the support for any action taken in accordance with Staff’s recommendation. It was noted that any action taken not in complete accordance with Staff’s recommendation should be accompanied by specific findings.
Chairman Herndon said he would wait to make comment until more information was available, but that it was possible meeting procedure would change.
The Board recognized that this was the final meeting in Mr. Hick’s second term. They thanked Mr. Hicks for his years of service and Mr. Hicks said he had enjoyed his time on the Board. He stated for the record that he would “just as soon leave now if the City Commission is going to start running the BZA meetings.”
Staff informed the Board that a new appointee, Marjorie Blaufuss, had been named to complete the term vacated by Mr. Fizell. Since this term had only one month remaining, the new member was reappointed ahead of time to her own first full term.
It was noted that the Board would still have an open seat, and any suggestions for new members should be communicated to Staff.
ADJOURN – 7:15 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department.