MINUTES
OCTOBER 7, 2004 – 7:05 P.M., CITY COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, FIRST FLOOR OF CITY HALL AT SIXTH AND MASSACHUSETTS STREET, LAWRENCE, KANSAS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Goans, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Santee, Mr. Herndon, Mr. Lane and new members Mr. Emerson and Ms. Blaufuss
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Patterson, Mr. Tully and Ms. Saker
ITEM NO. 1A: COMMUNICATIONS
· Email from area resident expressing concerns with possible use at 642-646 Locust (Item 5)
· Introduction of new Board members Marjorie Blaufuss and Wally Emerson
CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRAL REQUESTS
· There were no deferral requests for consideration
· Staff explained Item 4 had been withdrawn from consideration with the mutual agreement of Staff and the applicant.
DECLARATION OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS/ABSTENSION
· No ex parte communications were disclosed
· Chairman Herndon said he would abstain from Items 3 & 6
ITEM NO. 1B: ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2004-2005
Motioned by Mr. Santee, seconded by Mr. Lane to re-elect Mr. Hannon as Vice-Chairman for the 2004-2005 term. Motion was withdrawn after Staff noted that the Board’s By-Laws do not allow an individual to serve as an officer for more than two consecutive terms
The Board agreed unanimously to move the election issue to the end of the agenda.
Motioned by Mr. Emerson, seconded by Ms. Blaufuss to extend the term of Chairman Herndon and Vice-Chairman Hannon to the next regular agenda meeting.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 2: MINUTES
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Goans to approve the minutes of the September 2, 2004 meeting as presented.
Motion carried 5-0-2, with Mr. Emerson and Ms. Blaufuss abstaining.
Swearing in of witnesses.
ITEM NO. 3: LAWRENCE FIRE AND MEDICAL STATION NO. 5
B-09-22-04: 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. Said request is specifically to vary from the provisions of Section 20-1205(g)(1) of said City Code, which sets a 30’ maximum driveway width. The applicant is asking for a variance to allow a 73’ wide driveway for the new Fire Station No. 5. The request is made for the following legally described property: Lots 4 and 5, Fraternity Place Subdivision in the City of Lawrence. Said described property is generally bounded by West 19th Street on the north, Iowa Street on the west, and Stewart Avenue on the east. Submitted by Jay Zimmerschied with Sabatini Architects, Inc. for the City of Lawrence. Kansas University Endowment Association is the property owner of record.
Chairman Herndon stated his abstention but remained to facilitate discussion.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully introduced the request to allow a driveway in excess of the Code standard of 30’ in width. The applicant requested a driveway measuring up to 73’ in width to accommodate a 4-vehicle bay as part of the new fire station at 19th & Iowa Streets.
The subject area was currently vacant and proposed for a new station to serve the area, including apartment complexes and Kansas University property. A site plan would go before the City Commission in the near future.
Mr. Tully noted the unique architectural design, as well as the existing topography and vegetation of the area, which would reduce the impact of a 73’ wide driveway.
Mr. Tully listed the four types of vehicles that would be on site at the new station, including a Hazardous Material vehicle that would require the 4th parking bay. It was not unlikely that all four vehicles would need to leave the building in response to an alarm, and the 73’ drive would accommodate these movements.
The proposed driveway would also allow the vehicles to back into the bays without blocking traffic by making these movements in the street.
Mr. Tully outlined Staff’s analysis of the project’s conformance to the five criteria, including the opinion that the project would positively impact the public health, safety, and welfare and would not oppose the spirit and intent of the regulations.
Staff recommended approval of the project as proposed, based on the analysis of the five criteria stated in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Keith Billick, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Billick said the project was designed according to the dimensions stipulated by the Fire Department. He said this station would be unique because of the addition of the Hazardous Material vehicle.
Mr. Billick responded to questioning that he was unaware of any intent to place additional traffic signals at 19th Street and Stewart Avenue.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board found Staff’s analysis of the five criteria straightforward and had no additional questions or comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Santee to grant a variance to increase the allowable driveway width from 30’ to no more than 73’ as presented for Fire Station No. 5, based on the analysis of the five criteria as stated in the Staff Report.
Motion carried 6-0-1, with Chairman Herndon abstaining.
ITEM NO. 4: NORTHWEST CORNER OF N. 7TH & LOCUST STREETS
B-09-23-04: 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 20-707(b) of said City Code, which requires a 150’ lot depth for properties that are zoned C-5 (Limited Commercial) District. The applicant is seeking approval of a lot depth of 102’ at its narrowest point. The second variance is also from the provisions of Section 20-707(b) of said City Code, which requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 s. f. for lots zoned C-5 District. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a minimum lot area of 11,325 s. f. The request is for the following legally described property: A parcel of land being a portion of Block 6, in that part of the City of Lawrence, formerly known as North Lawrence in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 12 South, Range 20 East of Sixth Principal Meridian, Douglas County, Kansas , bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the North half of said Block 6, said corner being the Intersection of the Westerly line of Seventh (formerly Maine) Street, 60 feet wide, with the Northerly line of Locust Street 70 feet wide, as now established; thence along the Southerly line of said North Half of Block 6, North 89° 18’30” West, 100 feet to the Southeast corner of Parcel No. 2, as conveyed by Union Pacific Land Resources Corporations to Zaroco, Inc. by Special Warranty Deed dated May 19, 1982; thence along the Easterly line of said Parcel No. 2, North 0° 39’57” East, 102.41feet to the Northeast corner of said Parcel No. 2, said corner being on the Northerly line of Parcel No. 2 as conveyed by the Union Pacific Railroad Company to Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation, by Quitclaim Deed dated April 1, 1971, recorded March 19, 1976, in Volume 309, Page 617 through 621, Deed Records of said County, said corner also being on a non-tangent curve, concave Northwesterly, to which point a radial line bears South 11° 08’07” East, 1960.08 feet; thence Northeasterly, along said Northerly line of Parcel No. 2 as conveyed to Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation and along said curve, through a central angle of 3° 00’15”, 102.77feet to the most Northerly corner of said Parcel No. 2 as conveyed Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation, South 0° 39’57” West, 126.10 feet to the point of beginning. The described property is located on the northwest corner of N. 7th Street and Locust Street. Submitted by Lance Adams with Paul Werner Architects for D & D Rentals, property owner of record.
This item was withdrawn from consideration with mutual agreement from Staff and applicant, following Planning Commission action on the Preliminary Plat.
ITEM NO. 5: 642-646 LOCUST STREET
B-09-24-04: 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 20-707(b) of said City Code, which requires a 150’ lot depth for properties that are zoned C-5 (Limited Commercial) District. The applicant is seeking approval of a lot depth of 141’ at its narrowest point. The second variance is also from the provisions of Section 20-707(b) of said City Code, which requires a minimum lot width of 100’ for C-5 zoned property. The subject property has an existing lot width of 99.38’. The third variance is from the minimum lot area requirement of 15,000 s. f. for lots zoned C-5 District per said section of said City Code. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a minimum lot area of 14,079 s. f. The fourth variance is for a reduction of the 25’ minimum front and sidestreet building setbacks required in said section of the City Code. The applicant requests variances to 0’ for both setbacks in recognition of the existing conditions. The fifth variance is from the provisions in Sections 20-709 and 20-1212 of said City Code, which requires a minimum of 60 parking spaces to be provided for the proposed uses. The applicant is seeking to reduce the number of parking spaces to 40 spaces. The sixth variance requested by the applicant is from the provisions of Section 20-1215 of the City Code which requires the use of concrete curbs around the perimeter of the parking lot. The seventh and eighth variances are from the provisions of Section 20-1216(a) and 20-1216(c) of the City Code that require a 15’ greenspace setback to be provided between a parking area and street right-of-way and a 5’ greenspace buffer between parking areas and adjoining residentially zoned property. The applicant is asking approval for a 2’ greenspace setback along the N. 7th Street property side and a 3.6’ greenspace setback along the south property line. The ninth and final variance is from the provisions of Section 20-14A04.6(a) which calls for a 15% interior parking lot landscaping requirement. These requests are for the following legally described property: North Lawrence – Begin at intersection of the West line of Seventh Street with the South line of Locust Street in Block 6, then West along the South line of Locust Street 100 feet, then South 140 feet to the point of beginning. Said legally described property is known as 642-646 Locust Street. Submitted by Lance Adams with Paul Werner Architects for D & D Rentals, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson described the multiple variances requested for this property, which was approved for C-5 zoning conditioned upon filing of a Final Plat with the Register of Deeds office. The project encompassed five buildings at the southwest corner of the intersection of Locust Street & N. 7th Street. The project would also include property north of Locust Street, which would be razed and used for additional parking.
Mr. Patterson read the section of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages allowing redevelopment of existing commercial buildings within identified inner-neighborhood commercial centers through the use of alternate development standards to deal with conditions that would otherwise make redevelopment difficult.
It was noted that the existing commercial buildings were historically significant but were not listed on any historical register and the applicant was not seeking tax credit funding for the proposed rehabilitation.
Staff outlined the applicant’s intent, showing which buildings would be removed and which would be retained and required variances to bring their existing conditions into code conformity.
The variances were described as such:
Regarding the second variance, Mr. Patterson explained the existing building extended a few inches into the public right-of-way, which would be dealt with by the City Commission. The Board’s role was to consider the encroachment up to the right-of-way.
The third variance was the most controversial, because parking requirements are based on use and uses were not yet determined for the property. The applicant said 40 spaces could be provided, but there was no way of knowing how many spaces would be required by code once uses were chosen. In essence, the applicant asked the Board to help set appropriate uses by approving the parking situation.
Mr. Patterson said a number of variances related to existing lot configuration were approved by the Planning Commission with Preliminary Plat. These variances (lot width, depth, etc) would usually come before the BZA, but were approved by the Planning Commission in this case as part of the original plat of the property.
Staff recommended approval of the variances as requested, but the Staff Report included alternate wording if the Board felt the development should include only uses that would require only 40 parking spaces by code.
Mr. Patterson agreed in response to questioning that letters from area residents stated support for redevelopment of the subject area in general, but stated concerns related to land use (specifically uses involving alcohol sales) and potential overflow parking, as well as the safety of children walking to the nearby elementary school.
During the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Preliminary Plat, it was established that the applicant would have to obtain a special waiver from the City Commission to permit alcohol sales of any kind (retail or in a restaurant) on the property because of the property’s proximity to a church. The property owner stated at that time that he had no intent of pursuing this option.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Lance Adams, Paul Werner Architects, explained the applicant’s original intent was for mixed use including office, residential, and a restaurant of 5000 square feet. This scenario was the most intense and carried a parking requirement of 60 spaces and was the basis of the current variance request. When alcohol sales were removed from the consideration, the original restaurant concept was modified, resulting in two other scenarios that had lower parking requirements based on the new mix.
Mr. Adams spoke about improvement to the public health safety and welfare created by rehabilitation of the subject area. He reiterated that the majority of requested variances were dealing with existing conditions and the applicant anticipated the most discussion would concern the parking variance.
It was clarified that the 40 spaces proposed by the applicant were the maximum number possible including the subject property (18 spaces) and the lot to the north (22 spaces).
There was extensive discussion with Mr. Adams about the parking issue. He responded to questioning that the most intensive possible use of the property was a 9000 square foot restaurant, which would carry a parking requirement of 63 spaces. He cautioned that this hypothetical use of the property would be impossible to support and was not being considered by the applicant. However, the applicant asked the Board to use this parking requirement (63 spaces) as a “worst case scenario” when considering what kind of development and thus parking would be appropriate for the subject area.
The Board was asked to approve a variance from “X” spaces to 40 spaces, with “X” effectively directing the property owner as to what uses were appropriate. The applicant proposed 60 spaces as “X”.
It was clarified that the applicant could not revise the development and build on the northern parcel (instead of providing parking) without obtaining an approved revised site plan.
Mr. Adams responded to questioning that the applicant would like to use concrete bumpers instead of concrete periphery curbing because the existing parking lot extended right up to the building. Bumper curbs would keep cars distanced from the building. It was verified that the curbing request applied only to the rear of the existing building and would allow the retention of the existing greenspace between the subject property and the parking lot for the adjacent church.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Mr. Goans said he appreciated the preservation aspect of the project, but he had significant concerns about parking. He suggested the variance be reworded to include a “top number” – a number that reflected the maximum development intensity the Board thought could be adequately served by the 40 available spaces.
Ms. Blaufuss asked if there had been any concern expressed by the church that overflow parking from the subject area would park in the church’s lot. Mr. Adams said he had not heard any such concerns and noted that the subject area was potentially open to overflow from the church as well.
There was additional discussion about the appropriate number of spaces to allow a variance from. Some members felt 60 was an appropriate number based on the “worst case scenario” provided by the applicant. This would allow the property to develop with uses that would technically require 60 spaces by code, while only 40 spaces were provided. Others suggested denial of the variance, holding the development to uses that would require no more than the 40 spaces available.
Mr. Emerson expressed concern with using the variance process to determine uses. Comm. Blaufuss asked if the Board could approve all the variances except the one for parking, and the applicant could return with the parking variance if it was still needed when uses were determined. Mr. Herndon commented on the difficulty of finding users without being able to guarantee parking.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Lane to approve the following revised variances for the project at 642-645 Locust Street, based on the analysis of the five criteria as stated in the Staff Report:
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 6: THE FOUNTAINS RETIREMENT FACILITIES
B-09-25-04: 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 20-608 of said City Code, which allows a 35’ maximum building height for a structure in the RO-1B (Residence-Office) District. The applicant is seeking a maximum building height of 40’ for the proposed residential development. The second variance is from the provisions of Sections 20-610 and 20-1212 of said City Code which define the minimum number of parking spaces that are required for an assisted living apartment complex. The request is to reduce the parking from 78 required spaces to a minimum of 45 parking spaces. The subject property is located on the south side of Clinton Parkway between Inverness Drive and Crossgate Drive. It is legally described as: Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 1 in the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Submitted by Alan Mackey with Landplan Engineering for Inverness Park Limited Partnership, property owner of record.
Chairman Herndon stated his abstention but remained to facilitate discussion.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully explained the applicant’s request to allow four buildings in Phase One of the development to exceed the maximum height of 35’ allowed in the RO-1B zoning district. A second variance was requested to reduce the number of required parking spaces provided for the dementia/assisted living building of the development from 78 to 45 spaces.
Staff described the surrounding uses, including the Legends at KU development immediately to the south. The Legends project was zoned PRD-2, and had several buildings 45’ in height, which was allowed in the PRD zoning.
Mr. Tully explained that the applicant correctly calculated the required parking at spaces at 78, because the assisted living use was held to the same parking standards as a regular apartment complex. Staff understood that the applicant would be discussing the different parking needs of assisted living facilities versus regular apartment complexes.
It was clarified that the variances had to be dealt with before the project could go before the Planning Commission for a Use Permitted upon Review.
Mr. Tully responded to questioning that the taller building height was proposed in order to provide underground parking for the four Phase One buildings, while meeting floodplain requirements.
Staff recommended approval of both variances, based on the analysis of the five criteria as outlined in the Staff Report.
Mr. Tully responded to questioning that 40’ tall buildings were permitted by the Planning Commission for the adjacent development as part of the PRD-2 zoning; this project had to come to the BZA because of the property’s conventional zoning.
If the height variance were denied, the project would have to be redesigned to accommodate parking in a different manner. In Staff’s opinion, underground parking was a significant amenity for the intended residents of this development and should be encouraged.
Ms. Blaufuss asked Staff to explain the logic used when establishing parking requirements for the various zoning districts in the code. Mr. Tully replied these standards were based on multiple factors and that Staff was not prepared to describe the process in detail.
Mr. Emerson verified with Staff that approval of this request was specific to the property listed in the application and did not apply universally to all city property sharing RO-1B zoning.
Mr. Tully responded to questioning that Staff found no record of similar variance request for reduced parking for assisted living facilities.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Alan Mackey of Landplan Engineering spoke on behalf of the applicant, responding to the concerns raised during the Board’s discussion with Staff. He explained that the property was in the floodplain and was thus required to maintain a minimum elevation for the lowest building opening. The underground parking was the lowest opening in this case and the 40’ building height was needed to allow grading to the lowest possible point and still drain the property toward the floodplain.
Mr. Mackey stated that only 20 spaces would be needed for residents and employees of the assisted living/dementia building, and proposed 45 spaces total to allow for visitors. He said the trip generation data for assisted living projects supported the applicant’s belief that fewer vehicles would be involved with this facility than with a typical multi-family development. He verified that the facility would provide alternate transportation methods (private bus service) for its residents.
In response to questioning, Mr. Mackey said the presence of the floodplain made the property unique.
It was established the property had been zoned RO-1B in the late 1990’s, but Staff was not aware of why that zoning classification had been pursued.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Mr. Hannon said the request appeared logical based on the proposed use and noted that the requested building height matched the adjacent property.
Mr. Goans said he was not convinced the project met the five criteria. He felt the property’s location near/in the floodplain was not unique and that the applicant created their own hardship by not placing enough fill to meet the floodplain requirements. Also, the property owner created his own hardship by choosing RO-1B zoning for the property.
Mr. Hannon said applying 5’ of fill over the entire property was an unwarranted burden on the applicant. He thought the Staff Report analysis provided an adequate summary of the request in relation to the five criteria.
Mr. Santee said he felt this situation was unique because a variance would not be needed if the applicant were not required to meet the new floodplain regulations. He also thought it was important to note the matching 40’ building height of the adjacent property.
It was established that RO-1A zoning would allow a building height of 40’ but Staff was skeptical that any other zoning would be supported for the subject area.
The Board discussed parking requirements for assisted living facilities and some agreed that it was logical that this use would require fewer spaces than a typical apartment complex. However, there was concern that the code does not acknowledge this concept and acting without support of the code set a poor precedent. Staff verified that the proposed new code does recognize the difference in parking needs and sets a lower parking requirement for assisted living facilities. The new requirement of .5 spaces per bedroom would result in a parking requirement for this project of 32 spaces. The Board was agreed this adequately addressed their concerns of precedent, since this project proposed 45 spaces.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Goans, seconded by Mr. Emerson to approve the following variances for the Fountains Retirement Facility as requested, based on the findings and analysis provided in the Staff Report:
Motion carried, 6-0-1, with Chairman Herndon abstaining.
ITEM NO. 7: MISCELLANEOUS
Chairman Herndon told the Board he had received no further comment from Mayor Rundle on the process concerns raised earlier in the year.
No BZA or Sign Code items were submitted for November, leaving the meeting time open for a training session. The Board agreed to meet at 5:30 p.m., and would convene the Boards only to approve the October minutes and elect officers. The training session would follow immediately and a meal would be provided. The Board was asked to communicate any specific questions to Staff prior to the meeting.
ADJOURN – 9:20 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department.