MINUTES
DECEMBER 2, 2004 – 6:30 P.M., CITY COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, FIRST FLOOR OF CITY HALL AT SIXTH AND MASSACHUSETTS STREET, LAWRENCE, KANSAS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Goans, Herndon, Hannon, Blaufuss, Santee and Emerson
STAFF PRESENT: Patterson, Tully and Saker
ITEM 1A: COMMUNICATIONS
ITEM 1B: 2005 MEETING SCHEDULE
Motioned by Mr. Herndon, seconded by Mr. Hannon to approve the 2005 Meeting Schedule as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Mr. Emerson arrived at 7:35 p.m.
ITEM 2: MINUTES
Several typographical changes were requested to the minutes of the October 7, 2004 meeting. A substantive change was noted to the conditions of approval for Item 4. Another change was requested describing the upcoming code as “proposed’, rather than “new”, which implied incorrectly that the code was already in place.
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Ms. Blaufuss to approve the October 7, 2004 meeting minutes as revised.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Motioned by Mr. Herndon, seconded by Mr. Hannon to approve the minutes of the November 4, 2004 meeting as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Swearing in of witnesses
ITEM NO. 3: 1736 TENNESSEE STREET
B-10-26-04: 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 request is to vary from the provisions of Sections 20-610.3 and 20-1212 of said City Code, which defines a requirement of 2 off-street parking spaces for a single-family dwelling. The applicant is seeking a variance to provide one off-street parking space. The second variance request is from the provisions of Section 20-1209 (b) of said City Code, which allows only one required parking space to be located on a driveway or turnaround within the required front yard. The requests would allow for one parking space to be located on the driveway in the front yard setback. The application is for the following legally described property: Beginning at a point 490’ South of the Southwest corner of Lot 6, Block 7, Babcock’s Addition; thence South 50’; thence East 125’; thence North 50’; thence West 125’ to the point of beginning. Said described property is generally known as 1736 Tennessee Street. Submitted by Mark Lehmann contractor and property manager for Stanley C. and Teresa J. Lewis, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson explained that the code required two off-street parking spaces for a single-family home. Only one of these spaces was allowed in the front yard setback. A previous property owner had taken the home out of conformance with this requirement by converting the one-car garage to living space. The current property owner was requesting a variance to bring the home back into conformance. The Staff Report outlined two ways this could occur:
Staff recommended approval of the second option, with the condition that the existing driveway would be widened and paved according to city standards.
Mr. Patterson outlined Staff’s analysis of the project in relation to the five criteria. He specifically noted the hardship to the applicant if the variance were denied, which would require conversion of the new living space back to a garage. It was noted that the current parking regulations were not designed to deal with the smaller lots in older sections of the city, so it could be said that granting the variance did not oppose the intent of the regulations.
Staff recommended approval based on a determination that the proposal met all five of the required criteria.
It was discussed that the driveway could be “flared” inside the lot to accommodate two cars without widening the existing curb cut. It was suggested that Staff walk through the driveway expansion with the applicant to ensure compliance with city standards.
APPLICANT PRESENTATIUON
Mark Lehman, property owner, had no additional comments. He responded to questioning that the driveway was newly paved over in the original dimensions of the gravel driveway.
The applicant stated his willingness to widen and pave the existing driveway according to city standards.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board discussed how to word a motion for approval to make clear which variance they wanted to grant and the intent that the driveway should be widened and paved.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Herndon, seconded by Mr. Hannon to grant a variance from Sec. 20-1209(b) to allow two off-street parking spaces within the front yard setback, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 4: 1136 MISSISSIPPI STREET
B-11-28-04: 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 Sections 20-610.5 and 20-1212 of said City Code, which defines the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required for multiple-family residential dwellings. The applicant is asking for a variance to allow no off-street parking spaces for 6 new residential apartments proposed to be constructed on the subject property. The applicant is required by said sections of the City Code to provide a minimum of 11 parking spaces [6 spaces for 3 2-bedroom apartments and 5 spaces for 3 1-bedroom apartments]. The request is made for the following legally described property: The North Half of Lot 8, Block 9, Oread Addition in the City of Lawrence. Said described property is generally known as 1136 Mississippi Street. Submitted by Lance J. Adams with Paul Werner Architects for James A. Slough, the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully introduced the item, a request to allow a reduction in required off-street parking spaces from 11 to 0. He explained the subject property was now vacant, although it was possible the subject area had once been developed with a single-family home.
The subject lot had single-family homes converted to multi-family uses on the east and south. University property was adjacent to the west and an apartment complex was located to the north. Street access to the lot was available but challenging.
Mr. Tully said the applicant would discuss the difficulty of developing this lot based on the extraordinary slope of property. In Staff’s opinion, the slope was significant but was not unique to this part of Lawrence.
Staff noted the intent of the RD district to provide areas for high density development in proper placement in relation to other kinds of residential development.
One communication was received from a nearby property owner in opposition to the elimination of the off-street parking requirement. This neighbor said he might be able to accept a reduction in required parking, but the proposal to provide no off-street parking was not supportable.
Mr. Tully said the Historic Resources Commission was given an opportunity to comment on the variance request at their November meeting. The HRC had no comment at that time. It was understood that, if the variance were granted, the project would go before the HRC as a full agenda item for review of its impact on the historic environs.
In Staff’s opinion, the request did not meet any of the five criteria, and Staff recommended denial of the request. Mr. Tully said Staff encouraged the applicant to consider other types of development that would carry a reduced parking requirement.
Mr. Tully responded to questioning that the applicant and Staff had discussed other development options. It was not appropriate for Staff to make specific suggestions, which would give the false impression that approval of such a proposal was guaranteed. In these discussions, Staff understood the applicant’s opinion that nothing except the proposed use was viable in this location.
It was verified that, to Staff’s knowledge, there is no recorded easement to the subject property.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Werner said he did not like facing a negative recommendation and he would not make this kind of request at any other location. The applicant believed that the presence of significant University parking within one block mitigated the impact of this request and made the situation unique.
Mr. Werner said the “brutal” grade of the property and the lack of an access easement were other unique elements of this request. He said the proposal would not infringe on the adjacent property owners because those residents were already forced to park at a distance by the existing parking problem in the area. He suggested it was unfair to say this project would effect the existing situation.
Mr. Werner spoke about the code provision that allows the use of off-site parking within 300’ of the subject area, as long as the alternate site was owned by the same property owner. He related this to the possible use of the University parking area nearby, saying this met the intent of the regulations.
Mr. Werner discussed other housing types with lower densities and therefore lower parking requirements. He said a single-family residence would be unsuitable for this area, which was surrounded by apartments and students on all sides. Developing duplexes on the site would technically reduce density because of the way density was calculated in the code, but could conceivably result in more bedrooms and/or more cars.
The applicant provided graphics showing what elements would be needed to accommodate parking and an access drive on the steep slopes of the subject property. Mr. Werner said he did not think Staff would support the design that would be necessary.
Mr. Werner said it would be more likely to find several individuals (for separate units) who did not own cars and wanted to live near campus than groups or people (for duplexes) that met the same criteria.
Mr. Werner explained the applicant’s belief that a 20’ easement from the rear of the property to Indiana Street did exist, crossing the adjacent property to the east. However, unclear recording documentation in 1943 left room for argument whether this (possible) easement was intended for a driveway. Negotiations were anticipated with the adjacent property owner, but the applicant was concerned that denial of the variance request would leave him at the mercy of his neighbor.
The applicant had considered leasing parking spaces from the adjacent apartment complex, but this would be cost prohibitive and it would be less expensive to buy residents of the subject property an annual parking pass for the nearby University lot. Mr. Werner asked if there was a way to condition approval on the purchase of these passes by the property owner for future residents.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Candice Davis, 947 Louisiana and member of the Oread Neighborhood Association, spoke in strong opposition to the request. She said parking requirements provided a type of control over development, even in areas zoned for high-density uses.
Ms. Davis expressed her surprise that an applicant would come this far in the process with a proposal that was designed purposefully in contradiction to code. She said the subject property was “obviously” developed previously with a single-family structure and this may be the most suitable use today, even though the surrounding uses had changed.
Ms. Davis said the parking situation in this area had reached “critical mass” and she did not see use of the University lot as a reasonable option. She said variances were intended to protect neighborhoods and should be used only for special circumstances. In her opinion, this request did not meet those requirements and she asked the Board to deny the variance.
Janet Gerstner explained she had been an Oread resident for many years and was familiar with the challenges facing that neighborhood. She described a recent instance in which she spoke in favor of a similar request that was made under significantly different circumstances. Ms. Gerstner said the earlier variance had been justified in order to preserve a historic structure. In that case, definite agreements had been made for parking on a nearby church lot, and the location had been farther from campus. Ms. Gerstner said the Board had been a “hard sell” in that instance, and she hoped they would take the same level of care in considering this request. She said she could see no reasonable justification for granting the current request.
Ms. Gerstner said buying the residents a parking pass assumed the residents would all be students and would only grant them the ability to look for a spot in lots that were frequently completely full. She suggested this was not a workable solution.
Regarding the issue of slope, Ms. Gerstner said the development limitations were obvious and were known to the property owner when the land was purchased. It was not the Board’s responsibility to make that investment pay off.
Ms. Gerstner pointed out that the area was densely developed and had many students, but there were families “sprinkled throughout”. She also said that building a single-family home did not mean a traditional family had to live there. Under the zoning regulations, up to 4 unrelated individuals could reside in such a structure in RD zoning.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Mr. Emerson asked the applicant to clarify his request, asking why an application for no parking requirement was being considered if it was the applicant’s ultimate vision to provide parking in the rear of the lot as described. Mr. Werner said the applicant became aware of the adjacent property owner’s willingness to consider cooperating with the rear parking design after the application was submitted.
Mr. Werner said the applicant was comfortable enough following discussions with the adjacent property owner to accept a reduction in required parking from 11 spaces to 4. He discussed the types of development that would be possible with this allowance, but explained the adjacent property owner had other elements in mind for his own land as part of the possible parking arrangement. These plans would lengthen the process and make it unlikely that the subject property could be ready for occupancy (with the rear parking area and access to Indiana Street) by the target date of August 2005.
Mr. Hannon said the applicant had shown there were other options for development and the target construction date was irrelevant to the Board’s consideration. He said he could not support the request.
Vice-Chair Santee agreed, saying it was possible he could support a variance for less parking, but the elimination of required parking was “too extreme”.
Mr. Emerson stated his appreciation for the applicant’s intent to attract residents that did not own cars, but agreed with other members that the request was not supportable.
Ms. Blaufuss said the project was too dense for this property, the applicant’s expectation of providing no parking was unrealistic, and it was “cavalier” to rely on the parking area of another property owner, even the University.
Mr. Herndon said he understood Mr. Werner’s role in trying to strike a balance between the interests of the applicant and those of the city. However, he felt this proposal was one-sided and approval of the variance would be unfair to the neighborhood.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Ms. Blaufuss to deny the requested variance, based on the analysis of the five criteria in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 5: 338 FUNSTON AVENUE
B-11-29-04: A request for an exception and variances as provided in Sections 20-1708 and 20-1709.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. The exception request is from the provisions in Section 20-1504(a) of said City Code that would permit the owner to compute the depth of the required rear yard from the centerline of the alley abutting the subject property instead of from the rear property line. The subject variances are from the provisions in Section 20-608 of said City Code, which requires a minimum lot width of 60’ and lot area of 7,000 square feet for properties that are zoned RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District. The applicant is seeking approval of a lot width of 50’ and lot area of 5,150 square feet for the existing platted lot. These requests will allow the applicant to construct a single-family dwelling on the property. The requests are for the following legally described property: Lot 39, Frazier’s Subdivision in Addition 4 to North Lawrence. The described property is located at 338 Funston Avenue. Submitted by Jean Lilley, Executive Director of Lawrence Habitat for Humanity for Samuel C. and Jean Mumford, property owners of record.
Prior to Staff’s presentation, Mr. Hannon noted that the street signs on the subject property identified the road as Funston Lane, not Avenue as stated on the application, the Staff Report and the approved development plan.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request to allow a reduced minimum lot width from 60’ to 50’. He explained the lot was not large enough to qualify as an existing lot of record, so required a variance to rebuild a single-family dwelling on the now-vacant lot.
Staff discussed the new zoning district that might be applicable to the subject property once the new Subdivision Regulations were adopted.
In Staff’s opinion, the request was unique because lots this small did not usually occur in RS-2 and this neighborhood had other, developed lots of similar size.
Mr. Patterson noted the exception applied to the rear yard setback, which required no action by the Board.
Mr. Patterson responded to questioning that the issue of proof of ownership may be brought up and directed to the applicant.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Jean Lilley, Executive Director for Lawrence Habitat for Humanity, spoke about the continual difficulty finding places to locate affordable housing. The subject property had been located as a suitable site for this use and Habitat for Humanity intended to purchase the property with city home grant funding.
It was established that Habitat for Humanity was in contract with Samuel & Jean Mumford, with the understanding that these were the rightful property owners of record. The applicant had looked into ownership of the property at the courthouse and with the family’s attorney and “found nothing disputing” the ownership of Samuel & Jean. This fact was mentioned because another individual was present to argue his case as the owner of the subject property.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Michael Mumford said his mother had given the property to him and that he held the deed to the land. He said he had the deed, a letter from his mother, tax receipts and identification (driver’s license) showing himself as a resident and owner of the subject property.
Mr. Mumford said he could not afford legal representation and the Kansas Legal Commission had rejected his request for legal aid. However, he intended to continue his effort to prove himself as the rightful owner of the property and eventually rebuild and move back into the home he grew up in.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board discussed the ownership dispute, considering whether the Board should or could get involved in matters of this nature. It was suggested that granting the variance would allow Habitat for Humanity to proceed with their project, but would hinder Mr. M. Mumford’s ability to argue his ownership of the land.
It was noted that, if Mr. M. Mumford was proved correct in his claim for ownership, he would need the same variance in order to build a house on the property.
The Board talked with Staff about what documentation is required with an application to verify ownership and the authority of an applicant to submit on behalf of a property owner.
The Board asked if Habitat for Humanity was in possession of legal documentation that Samuel & Jean Mumford owned the subject property. Ms. Lilley replied, “We believe we do.” Ms. Lilley also responded to questioning that action on this request was time essential; they intended to apply for a building permit the next day and families were waiting for homes.
There was additional discussion about the variance being of benefit for any property owner. Mr. M. Mumford agreed that he would not object to the variance, with the understanding that it did not lend credence to anyone’s claim of ownership and did not require a home be built on the property.
It was verified that all parties understood the length of time the variance was valid for and the current policy on extensions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Ms. Blaufuss to approve variances to reduce the required minimum lot area from 7000 square feet to 5,150 square feet and the minimum lot width from 60’ to 50’, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 6: MISCELLANEOUS
a) Consider any other business to come before the Board.
Staff announced the departure of Current Planner Jeff Tully, explaining this would be Mr. Tully’s final meeting. The Board thanks Mr. Tully for his time of service.
b) Consider a request from Rich Minder, Treasurer of Delaware Street Commons co-housing project, for an extension of variances previously approved and extended by the Board to keep them viable during the platting, development plan design and approval processes of the project. City Code permits the Board to grant a variance approval extension for a maximum length of 90-days at a time.
Jennifer Distlehorst spoke as the project leader and an intended resident of the housing project. She shared the Board’s surprise that the project was taking so long. She explained the delays involved in having to modify each step in the development process because this type of housing was a “new animal” in Lawrence. The project members hoped this would be the final extension needed.
Mr. Emerson and Ms. Blaufuss indicated they would abstain from the vote because they had not been involved in the original consideration of the variances.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Herndon, seconded by Mr. Hannon to approve a 90-day extension to the variances approved for the Delaware Street Commons co-housing project.
Motion carried 4-0-2, with Mr. Emerson and Ms. Blaufuss abstaining.
ADJOURN – 8:25 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.