MINUTES
FEBRUARY 3, 2005 – 6:45 P.M., CITY COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, FIRST FLOOR OF CITY HALL AT SIXTH AND MASSACHUSETTS STREET, LAWRENCE, KANSAS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Goans, Herndon, Hannon, Blaufuss, Emerson, Santee and Lane
STAFF PRESENT: Patterson and Saker
_______________________________________________________________________
ITEM NO. 1: COMMUNICATIONS
ITEM NO. 2: MINUTES
Several typographical errors were noted in the minutes of the January 2005 meeting. The Commission asked Staff to make changes to the action taken for B-12-31-04 to clarify the Board’s intent.
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Herndon to approve the minutes of the January 6, 2005 meeting as revised.
Motion carried 4-0-2, with Mr. Emerson and Mr. Santee abstaining due to their absence from the January meeting.
ITEM NO. 3: 445 INDIANA STREET
B-12-34-04: 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 in Section 20-1311 of said City Code, which define accessory building setback requirements. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow for a 4.5 feet setback along the south side property line. City Code requires a minimum setback of 10’ from an exterior lot line. The second variance request is from the provisions of Section 20-1312 of said City Code, which defines the maximum size for accessory buildings not to exceed 30 percent of the required rear yard. The proposal provides a 576 square feet accessory structure, while the code allows only 450 square feet based upon the current zoning of the property being RS-2 District. The application is for the following legally described property: Lot 119, Block 39, West Lawrence Addition and Lot 119 on Indiana Street in the Original Townsite of the City of Lawrence. Said described property is known as 445 Indiana Street. Submitted by Joella Hammeke, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the request for a variance to allow construction of a detached two-car garage on a lot of substandard size. The proposed garage measured 24’ X 24’ and would be located within the required 10’ side yard setback. The building would also exceed the maximum allowable rear yard coverage.
Mr. Patterson noted that the side yard setback reduction would allow the new structure to match the building line established by an existing building.
Mr. Patterson explained that local streets were normally required to have 60’ of right-of-way, and 5th Street has 80’ of right-of-way, with 25’ between the back of the 5th Street curb to the property line. He had verified with the City Engineer that there were no plans to widen 5th Street in the foreseeable future.
The Staff Report included the minutes from the Historic Resources Commission’s consideration of the request. The HRC had approved the environs review of the project, finding that it did not have a significant impact on any historic structure or its environs.
Staff recommended approval of the variances requested, finding they met the Five Criteria, with the stipulation that the project must conform to the conditions set by the HRC. Staff suggested a number of additional conditions, including limiting the structure to 528 square feet (22’ X 24’). The Board had set a clear precedent of approving these dimensions for accessory buildings on substandard lots.
Staff recommended that, in accordance with Building Code standards, the new building should not be constructed over the existing underground sanitary sewer lines. The applicant indicated his intent to relocate these lines so they would not run underneath the garage. The Board discussed striking this condition and allowing Neighborhood Resources to deal with this Building Code issue.
It was established that an existing accessory building would be removed when the requested building was complete. The Board discussed adding this as another condition of approval. Staff clarified that the existing building was not included in the rear yard coverage calculations.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
William Tobin, co-owner and applicant, verified his intent to construct the new garage to the same building line as the primary structure. He explained his request for a 24’ X 24’ garage to accommodate his two work vehicles, which were both wide, extended-cab trucks. He said his neighbors supported the project because it would get these vehicles off the street.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
There was additional discussion about revising conditions. The Board specifically considered whether increasing the 528 square foot precedent was justified in this case. Some members did not feel inclined to grant the larger request. Specific findings were discussed in favor of the larger size:
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Herndon, seconded by Mr. Hannon to approve the variances for the project at 445 Indiana Street as requested, subject to the following conditions:
1. The detached 1-story garage shall be limited to a maximum building footprint of 24’ x 24’ = 576 square feet;
2. The project shall adhere to the conditions of the Historic Resources Commission; and
3. The existing accessory building shall be removed when the new structure is complete.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 4: 1136 MISSISSIPPI STREET
B-01-01-05: 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 5 off-street parking spaces for 3 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 9 parking spaces [9 spaces for three (3) 3-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 Paul Werner with Paul Werner Architects for James A. Slough, the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, explaining the Board heard a request for the same property in December 2004. At that time, the applicant’s request to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces from 10 to 0 was denied. The applicant returned with a modified request to reduce the off-street parking requirement from 9 spaces to 5.
It was established that the project had been redesigned to contain 3-plexes instead of 4-plexes, which carried a lower parking requirement and did not have to provide ADA-standard parking.
Mr. Patterson noted the code provision that would allow a lot to utilize off-site parking to fulfill its parking requirement if the off-site location was within 300 feet of the subject property, was held under the same ownership and had an equal or less intense zoning classification.
Staff agreed with the applicant that the site was topographically challenging, describing slopes of 14-15%. Mr. Patterson said the applicant proposed attaining access through the adjacent lot to the east to deal with these slopes. It was established that Neighborhood Resources did not have any regulations relating to driveway slope.
Staff recommended denial of the request, finding that the revised project still did not meet the Five Criteria.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated his disappointment about Staff’s negative recommendation. He said it was unfortunate that the Board was only made aware of a project when it needed a variance, because his firm did a reasonable amount of work in this area that needed no variances.
Mr. Werner said this “difficult lot” was zoned RD, the most dense zoning category, meaning it was intended for multi-family structures. He said that, since the previous application was denied, the project had been reduced to 9 bedrooms and parking was increased from 0 spaces to 5. He stated this was the most efficient parking that could be provided because the lot was only 50’ wide and there was limited buildable area. He explained that providing more than 5 spaces cut into the building footprint so much that only 6 bedrooms would be possible. This in turn reduced the amount of required parking.
Mr. Werner noted that, typically in the Oread neighborhood, smaller lots were allowed to average their front yard setback. This lot did not have that option and had to provide a full 25’ setback.
Mr. Werner said another obstacle for this lot was the need for HRC review. This meant the project would have to look like the older homes in the area, including porches and other elements that took up buildable space.
The applicant felt that, given the challenges of developing this lot, it was appropriate to allow this project to count the nearby university parking lot as an acceptable off-site parking location.
Mr. Werner said it was off-topic but somewhat relevant that those opposing parking variances in the Oread Neighborhood were frequently those who had requested similar variances for other projects in the same area. He said that the parking problem in Oread was caused by older, existing structures, not the new buildings. He added that it seemed projects were not considered equally.
Mr. Werner referenced the letter from Candice Davis that suggested the property be used as a parking lot for the adjacent lots. He noted the recent relocation of an historic home to Tennessee Street, saying the new lot would have been in ideal location for a new parking area.
Mr. Hannon said the Board frequently tried to accommodate parking problems when the issue was rehabilitating an existing structure. However, this case involved starting fresh with a vacant lot, and he did not understand why it could not be developed according to the requirements. He suggested constructing a parking area underneath the structure to provide the full amount of required parking. Mr. Werner said this was possible but not realistic because the lot would have to access Mississippi Street and the lot was too narrow to successfully accommodate the needed aisle.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Candice Davis, Vice-President of the Oread Neighborhood Association, said the applicant’s argument was confusing. She referenced a small set of existing steps on the property, saying this appeared to indicate that the property had held a structure at one time.
Ms. Davis said she opposed a variance at this location, which did not mean she opposed all variances of this nature. She said variances had their purpose but they were not “one size fits all.” She added that she did not oppose high density development, but supported good planning in those areas.
Ms. Davis said the Oread Neighborhood was a combination of many different kinds of living groups, including single-family homes (which could accommodate as many as 4 unrelated persons) with the goal of “optimizing the living experience for everyone”. This meant maximizing parking and stabilizing the existing neighborhood against further deterioration.
Ms. Davis said the current request was unreasonable for many reasons, including the small lot size, the steep grade of the property, the lack of parking availability and the restricted street access.
Ms. Davis said the neighborhood would be negatively impacted by the project, which would add to the existing parking problem and reduce the existing quality of life. She said the neighborhood should not be held responsible for the applicant’s poor business decision. She noted that she owned the house at 947 Louisiana and had three rental tenants. This provided some income “but not a windfall”, and if something were to happen to the existing structure she would likely build another. She said there were many ways to use land and the Zoning Code protected the public by maintaining balance in areas of high density.
Janet Gerstner said she spoke in opposition to the previous application for this property in December, and she still had several questions about the new request. She referenced Mr. Werner’s statement that the new design reduced the number of bedrooms. She pointed out that this was not the case – the design was modified to contain fewer units with the same number of bedrooms. Changing from 4-plexes to 3-plexes reduced the parking calculation and thus required fewer spaces for the same number of tenants.
Ms. Gerstner made several comments:
· She appreciated the applicant’s modification from 0 provided spaces to 5, but this proposal was still too dense for this site.
· The site may be more appropriately developed with two 3-bedroom units, which would carry a parking requirement of 6 spaces.
· It would be ideal if the neighborhood could attract more car-less residents but this was not the reality.
· There were questions about recorded access easements when the previous application was considered. Is this issue was resolved and is the lot was able to provide legal street access?
· At what point in the process are design drawings required, since they are not part of this application but will be needed for the HRC’s consideration?
· She would normally not suggest using the property to provide parking for other sites, but in this case it might be an option to consider.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Mr. Werner was asked to address the questions posed by the public:
· A legal easement was recorded 40 years ago granting access to Indiana Street.
· Even if the site were used to provide parking for the adjacent lots, it would not be enough to meet the overall need.
· There was once a house on the subject lot, but no other information could be found about the structure.
· The new design did contain the same number of bedrooms but carried a smaller parking requirement.
· The applicant was not in the business of developing congregate residences (group home or boarding house), but this use would carry an even lower parking requirement while potentially accommodating the same number of residents.
· The applicant did not want to spend the time and money preparing design drawings before the BZA made their determination, because the building footprint may have to change based on the Board’s decision.
Mr. Hannon said he still thought the property could be developed in a manner that may not fit the applicant’s intent but would be within the regulations. He added that he still felt underground parking was a viable option and creative work could result in parking solutions. He stated that, because this was new development instead of a rehabilitation proposal, the project “already had strikes against it.”
Mr. Emerson said he knew he did not understand the applicant’s business, but he did not see why the site could not be developed within the code requirement. He said he found the public’s comments about the negative impact on historic neighborhoods more persuasive than the applicant’s need to develop the lot. Mr. Emerson said it appeared the applicant was trying to find ways around the parking requirement and he could not support the request.
Mr. Santee said he grew up in the house adjacent to the subject property and there had been a home with no access on the now-vacant lot. He pointed out that “squeezing” the design to provide apartments drove up the per-unit cost and he would like to help the applicant provide an affordable place for someone to live. He stated that the market determined rental prices and it was hard to rent a unit with no parking.
Ms. Blaufuss said zoning was intended to protect against situations like this and she could not support the development of something “too big for the property.”
Mr. Lane understood this site was hard to use because of access and other factors. He questioned how important it was to maintain the residential appearance of the neighborhood, since non-residential uses already existed to the north, but he still had concerns about access.
It was established that site plan approval from the City Commission was not required for this project, so the driveway would not fall under additional scrutiny as long as it met the residential driveway standards.
Mr. Herndon said he was empathetic to Mr. Werner’s efforts, but he thought the applicant should have been aware of the property’s limitations before buying the land and been prepared to develop the site within the known standards according to those limitations. He agreed with the applicant that underground parking would be too expensive per stall to be practical. Mr. Herndon said there were many factors to consider, including the small size of the lot and its unique location. However, in the end he believed the property could be developed without a variance so he could not support the request.
Mr. Goans questioned whether this lot could be considered unique, saying its size, location, slope and proximity to campus were not unusual in this neighborhood. He agreed that the request did not meet the criteria of hardship because it would be possible to develop the site without a variance.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Goans, seconded by Mr. Hannon to deny the variance requested for the project at 1136 Mississippi Street, based on the findings presented in the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 5: FIRE & MEDICAL STATION NO. 4; 2100 BLOCK WAKARUSA DRIVE
B-01-02-05: 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 48’ wide driveway for the new Fire Station No. 4. The request is made for the following legally described property: Lot 1, Yankee Tank View Addition in the City of Lawrence. Said described property is located in the 2100 block on the west side of Wakarusa Drive, south of the Clinton Water Treatment Plant. Submitted by John Reeves with Sabatini Architects, Inc. for the City of Lawrence, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request to allow a driveway wider than the 30’ allowed per the residential zoning regulations. The additional driveway width would accommodate a 3-bay station for Fire Station #4 on the west side of Wakarusa Drive.
Mr. Patterson provided information on previous driveway width variances granted in similar situations and stated Staff’s recommendation for approval, based on precedent and a determination that the request met the Five Criteria.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
John Reeves, Sabatini Architects, was present to answer additional questions from the board and stated no opposition to Staff’s recommendation.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board discussed whether the new Development Code addressed the issue of wider driveway widths for fire, medical and other emergency facilities. It was suggested that this kind of request was not frequent enough to warrant specific language in the new code. The Board agreed not to pursue this issue at this time.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Goans, seconded by Mr. Lane to approve the variance allowing an increased driveway width from 30’ to 48’ for Fire Station #4 located in the 2100 block of Wakarusa Drive, based on the analysis provided in the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 6: MISCELLANEOUS
There were no additional matters to come before the Board.
ADJOURN – 8:20 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office.