MEETING MINUTES
__________________________________________________________________________
Board members present: Blaufuss, Goans, Hannon, Emerson, Lane and Carpenter
Staff present: Patterson, Pool, Gunter and Saker
ITEM NO. 1: COMMUNICATIONS
ITEM NO. 2: MINUTES
Several typographical errors were noted in the September 2005 minutes.
Motioned by Lane seconded by Emerson to approve the September 2005 meeting minutes as revised.
Motion carried 5-0-1 with Carpenter abstaining.
Swearing in of witnesses.
ITEM NO. 3: 1246 HASKELL AVENUE; NEIGHBORHOOD APPEAL
B-04-10-05: Consider an appeal from the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association to expand the list of items included as violations in a “Notice and Order” issued by Barry Walthall, Code Enforcement Manager of the Division of Codes Enforcement/Inspection, Neighborhood Resources Department, City of Lawrence. The “Notice and Order” citing a number of Zoning Code violations at 1246 Haskell Avenue was issued to the property owner of record, Polk & Polk L. C. on March 30, 2005 by Mr. Walthall. The appeal, submitted by Michael S. Almon, for Brook Creek Neighborhood Association, was filed in the Planning Office on April 8, 2005. [Deferred from the June 2 and September 1, 2005 meetings.]
Item 3 was withdrawn by the applicant’s representative prior to the meeting.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Emerson, seconded by Lane to accept written communications as evidence of the applicant’s intent not to pursue this matter further.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 4: 1246 HASKELL AVENUE; PROPERTY OWNER APPEAL
B-04-11-05: Consider a request from Jane Eldridge, attorney with Barber Emerson, L.C. on behalf of her client Greg Polk, for an interpretation of each section of the Zoning Code cited in a “Notice and Order” issued by Barry Walthall, Code Enforcement Manager of the Division of Codes Enforcement/Inspection, Neighborhood Resources Department, City of Lawrence. A “Notice and Order” citing a number of Zoning Code violations at 1246 Haskell Avenue was issued to the property owner of record, Polk & Polk L. C. on March 30, 2005 by Mr. Walthall. The appeal for interpretation of these referenced code provisions was filed in the Planning Office on April 8, 2005. [Deferred from the June 2 and September 1, 2005 meetings.]
Item 4 was withdrawn by the applicant’s representative prior to the meeting.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Emerson, seconded by Lane to accept written communications as evidence of the applicant’s intent not to pursue this matter further.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 5: 613 NORTH 2ND STREET
B-08-30-05: A request for variances as provided in Sections 20-1709.1 and 20-1709.2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. The first request is specifically to reduce the 50’ front yard building setback required in Section 20-807 of said City Code to a minimum of 0’. The second variance request is to reduce the 15’ side yard building setback required in said section of the City Code to a minimum of 0’ along the north property line. The third variance is from the provisions of Section 20-9A04(e)(3)(ii) of said City Code which defines the maximum amount of impervious surface cover to not exceed 60 percent of the property within the floodplain overlay district. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the entire site to be covered with paving and building. The fourth variance is from the provisions of Sections 20-809.11 and 20-1212 of the City Code which establish the minimum number of off-street parking spaces the property owner needs to provide on the site. The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the number of spaces from 8 parking spaces to 4 spaces. The final variance being requested is from the provisions of Section 20-14A04.6 of the City Code which pertains to planting requirements within parking areas. The applicant is seeking clarification and a variance from this provision based upon the site plan only providing 4 off-street parking spaces. These requests are submitted to address existing site development conditions on the following legally described property: Lot 125, less the east 5’, in North Lawrence Addition No. 2 in the City of Lawrence. Said described property is located at 613 North 2nd Street. Submitted by Cathy Clark with Paul Werner Architects for KelJon of Lawrence, LLC, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request for multiple variances to allow use of an existing non-conforming building/site for a commercial use:
Staff recommended approval with condition that standard setbacks would be constructed upon site redevelopment.
Staff recommended approval with condition that standard setbacks would be constructed upon site redevelopment.
Staff recommended the applicant be required to provide additional information addressing the proposal’s compliance with floodplain development standards (above and beyond the Five Criteria). Most floodplain development issues will be dealt with through the development plan and site plan and were not under consideration tonight.
Staff recommended approval of an alternate variance to allow a minimum of 4 spaces, based on concerns that the future use was unknown, thus its parking requirement was unknown. Staff suggested the property owners seek uses that carried a parking requirement of 4 spaces or return with a new variance request when a use was established.
5. Allow retention of the existing sub-standard parking lot landscaping.
Staff said a Code provision for parking areas with less than 6 spaces allowed this to occur without a variance.
Mr. Patterson noted that the subject property had no rear yard setback requirement per Section 20-807(b) because it is zoned industrial and backs onto rail road property.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Werner spoke about recent site improvements done prior to approval of a development plan or site plan. He said this oversight was the result of “lots of people trying to help a situation that got worse over time,” and it was “unfair to blame the applicant.”
Mr. Werner presented an email response from the Neighborhood Resources Department stating that no building permit would be required to re-pave the original parking lot. He said the parking lot improvements were done without an approved site plan, but it was difficult to hold the applicant accountable in light of the response from Neighborhood Resources. Mr. Werner said there was adequate evidence that the newly re-paved area was also paved originally and the applicant had not increased the impervious surface but extended an existing condition.
Mr. Werner said building permit issues came up only when the applicant applied for a permit to remove the garage doors and when pavement from the parking lot to the street was needed.
Mr. Werner agreed with Staff’s interpretation that no variance was required for the interior parking lot landscaping for less than 6 parking spaces, per section 20-14A04.6.
Regarding parking requirements, Mr. Werner said this was not likely to be a retail use and restricting the property to uses with a parking requirement of 4 spaces hurt the tenant not the property owner. He pointed out that more than 4 vehicles could fit in the parking area, even if only 4 legal spots could be designated.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
There was discussion about modifications made to the original building that increased the interior square footage and impacted the calculation of required parking. The Board also discussed the difference in appraised value of an entire developed property versus the building alone and how this difference would effect code compliance in terms of site planning and floodplain improvement regulations. It was pointed out that these matters were under the City Commission’s review and were not before the Board this evening.
The Board made several comments:
· The applicant will have to meet floodplain development standards in order to obtain a floodplain development permit.
· It may be assumed from pictorial evidence that the newly re-paved parking lot is a replacement of a pre-existing condition.
· The variance for parking lot landscaping is a moot point.
· The 0’ front yard setback is not “pleasant”, but was a long-standing pre-existing condition.
· It is a positive impact that this proposal eliminates one existing curb cut on W. 6th Street.
It was verified that the applicant had addressed drainage issues for the subject site. Stormwater should now drain away from the building.
There was additional discussion about the options for the parking space requirement variance and Staff provided information on the types of uses that would be allowed in each case:
· Approve a variance for a reduction in required spaces from 8 to 4. This would allow uses with a parking requirement of up to 8 spaces. The applicant agrees this would be excessive.
· Approve a variance for a reduction in required spaces from 6 to 4. This would allow uses with a requirement of up to 6 spaces. The applicant feels this is reasonable but Staff is concerned about granting this variance without knowing the use.
· Approve a variance for a minimum of 4 spaces. This equates to a denial and holds the property to a use requiring only 4 spaces.
· Deny the variance. This would also hold the property to uses requiring only 4 spaces.
It was verified that the parking space variance could have a condition tying it to the life of the building, and not run with the land, so future redevelopment of the property would be required to provide parking per Code.
Mr. Werner said it was difficult to lease the property to any use without knowing the parking requirement. He added that a variance from 6 to 4 parking spaces would allow a wider variety of uses and would allow for the use of more finished interior space.
ACTION TAKEN
Variances 1, 2 &3
Motioned Hannon, seconded by Lane to approve variances 1, 2 & 3 as presented, based on the findings presented in the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Variance 4
The Board took no action on the variance request for reduced parking, leaving the current situation (4 spaces provided) as a pre-existing non-conforming use.
Variance 5
The Board agreed with Staff’s interpretation that a variance was not required in order to retain the existing interior parking lot landscaping.
ITEM NO. 6: 4104 WEST 6TH STREET
B-09-31-05: 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 requests are specifically to vary from the provisions of Section 20-1445 of said City Code, which pertain to the location of earth stations (satellite dish antennas). The applicant is seeking variances to allow placement of a 6’ diameter dish antenna within the interior side yard setback and closer than 4’ to the building. Said section of the City Code also requires ground mounted antennas to be screened with a view reducing fence of landscaping a minimum of 6’ in height. The request is for the following legally described property: Lot 26, Monterey Subdivision No. 4 in the City of Lawrence. Said described property is known as 4104 West 6th Street, which is located directly east of Commercial Federal Bank. Submitted by Chris W. and Carol A. Armstrong, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Pool introduced the item, a request to allow placement of a satellite dish antenna within the 10’ interior side yard setback, closer than 4’ from the building and without visual screening.
Staff recommended approval of the request, subject to the condition that the dish was screened, and that the dish would be removed when a broadband connection is installed. It was anticipated that this would occur within 3 years. Staff’s recommendation also included a condition for submittal of a letter from the property owner to the Neighborhood Resources Department per Code requirements.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Chris Armstrong, property owner, said the purpose of this request was to provide worldwide communications capability for a prospective tenant of the new commercial building. He agreed with Staff’s recommended conditions, stating that a broadband communications system would be more efficient but was not financially feasible at this time. The potential tenant said a broadband connection could be expected for installation sometime in the next 1-3 years.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board discussed revising conditions to allow more flexibility in the type of communications system that could replace the proposed dish. No objection to this revision was expressed by Staff or the applicant.
Staff responded to questioning that the applicant’s compliance with the condition would be on the “honor system.” If the satellite dish was not removed at the end of three years, enforcement officers would likely be notified only through neighborhood complaints.
Mr. Armstrong said he had explained this request to surrounding tenants and had received no objections.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Hannon, seconded by Lane to approve the variances as requested for 4104 W. 6th Street, based on the findings presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. The screening of the dish and associated concrete base on its western, southern, and northern sides by vegetation that has been approved for use as a screen by the city’s Parks and Recreation Department. As another option, the applicant could install an opaque fence instead of vegetation.
2. Removal of the satellite dish shall take place immediately upon installation of an alternate communications system, or within three (3) years of this action, whichever occurs first; and
3. The submittal of a letter from the property owner or installer to the Neighborhood Resources Department within 30 days of the date of installation, verifying that the installation of the antenna meets the above requirements and complies with the present edition of the National Electrical Code as adopted by the city. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Planning Office.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
ITEM NO. 7: MISCELLANEOUS
A. Consider a request from Debi Farmer, property owner of 2529 Bonanza Street, for a 90-day extension of the variance approved by the Board at the June 2, 2005 meeting.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Hannon, seconded by Emerson to grant a 90-day extension to the variances granted for 2529 Bonanza Street.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
B. Consider a request from Brad Brown, property owner of 1104 E. 26th Street, for a 90-day extension of the variance approved by the Board.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Emerson, seconded by Lane to grant a 90-day extension to the variances granted for 1104 E. 26th Street.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
C. Election of officers for 2005 - 2006
Motioned by Hannon, seconded by Blaufuss to re-elect Goans as the 2005-2006 Chair.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Motioned by Emerson, seconded by Blaufuss to elect Lane as the 2005-2006 Vice-Chair.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
D. Study Session for new Board members
It was verified that a majority of Board members would be able to attend a Study Session at 5:00 p.m., prior to the regular November 3, 2005 meeting.
ADJOURN – 8:00 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.