BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
(As approved by BZA on July 5, 2007)
______________________________________________________________________
Members present: Blaufuss, Carpenter, Goans, Lane, von Tersch
Staff present: Patterson, J. Miller, Brown
______________________________________________________________________
ITEM NO. 1: COMMUNICATIONS
ITEM NO. 2: MINUTES
Motioned by Lane, seconded by Blaufuss, to discuss changes to the April 5, 2007 minutes at the end of the meeting.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Swearing in of witnesses.
ITEM NO. 3: 529 TENNESSEE STREET [PGP]
B-05-03-07: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code in the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2006 edition. The request is specifically to reduce the 20’ rear yard building setback requirement in an RS5 (Single-Dwelling Residential) District per Section 20-601(a) of the City Code, to a 13’ minimum rear yard setback measured from the centerline of the abutting alley. The property is legally described as Lot 15 on Tennessee Street in the Original Townsite of the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. The subject property is located at 529 Tennessee Street. Submitted by Gary O’Doniel, owner of Gary O’Doniel Construction, for Don Marquis, the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Patterson introduced the item, a request for a variance to reduce the 20’ rear yard building setback requirement at 529 Tennessee. Based upon findings for approval of each of the five required conditions per Section 20-1309(g)(1), Staff was required to recommend a denial of the requested variance.
Lane asked if the applicant could build directly against the alley.
Mr. Patterson stated, yes.
Lane expressed concern about a garage door being five feet from the alley when there was only sixteen feet of alley. This would allow minimal turning space for a car to turn into the garage.
Mr. Patterson agreed it would be a concern and stated that a typical alley was now twenty feet.
Carpenter inquired about the Staff Report condition 2 “That granting the variance would not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owner or resident” and asked if anyone else on the block had requested a variance.
Mr. Patterson said, not that he was aware of.
Carpenter did not feel that being the first one on the block to request a variance was a hardship.
Blaufuss wanted to know if the current property owners enlarged the house.
Mr. Patterson responded no, the previous owners did that, not the current ones.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Gary O’Doniel, representing the property owner Don Marquis, stated that they wanted to make the least impact on the backyard while still having a useable garage. He showed the Board drawings of the layout of the backyard and where the garage would be located. He felt that the proposal was the most conservative in keeping the backyard. The alley was a tight space and the proposed plan made the most sense. He was concerned about the main sewage line underneath. He did not feel the garage would adversely affect the neighborhood.
Goans asked how long Mr. O’Doniel had lived in the house.
O’Doniel stated he purchased the house in 1993.
von Tersch inquired about the distance between the detached garage and the house.
O’Doniel stated four feet, with the roof overhang, was the distance between the detached garage and house.
Lane said that the sewer line of clay tile looked like it was in the alley which would be normal and highly impractical to put the garage foundation on top of that. He asked what the reason for not wanting a detached garage that opened to the south.
O’Doniel replied that if the garage faced that direction it would then turn the entire backyard into concrete. The alley was narrow so turning into the garage would be a little more difficult than normal.
Lane said that the Board had to follow State Statutes and City Regulations and wondered how they could meet all the conditions to find that the property was unique compared to the others on the block.
O’Doniel replied that the house was the only single story house on the block which took up more space on the lot.
von Tersch inquired about exterior doors on the north side of the house.
O’Doniel said that there were no doors on the north side of the house.
von Tersch stated that access to the side yard would be inconvenient. She did not feel the hardship requirement had been met.
Lane said that it would increase the impervious surface.
Mr. Patterson stated that there was pervious concrete on the market and that it would be the preference of the owner on what type to use.
Don Marquis, property owner, stated that all of the houses on the block were two story houses so they had more backyard space. He went on to say that his situation was unique because his house went back to the property line. If he put a detached garage in the backyard then he wondered what he would do with the area between the garage and the back of the house since the space would only be four feet. He said that he could either grow grass or lay concrete. He said he would virtually lose all backyard space if he built a detached garage. These reasons were why he felt his situation was unique.
Blaufuss wondered if the Board gave him uniqueness based on his argument, what his hardship would be.
Mr. Marquis said he could live without a garage but that it would certainly be nice to have one. He said that if he were not granted the variance he did not particularly like the detached garage idea.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Carpenter felt that uniqueness was met since it was a single story home in a neighborhood full of two story homes. He did not believe there would be an adverse impact on the neighborhood. He felt the criteria of hardship had not been met. He went on to say that there should be more permeable surface. He recommended the applicant request a Text Amendment through City Commission. Carpenter said that if the only hardship of the applicant was economic then he would have to vote no.
Lane said to Mr. Patterson that the applicant stated that following the requirements of the zoning ordinance would reduce the open space on the lot. Lane wondered if there was some way that that would be considered a hardship on the owner. Basically all of the backyard would be impervious surface if they built a detached garage.
Mr. Patterson stated that Staff was concerned that a principal building was from the front to the back setback and that was a problem. The yard was small because the house was extended so far.
John Miller, City attorney, said that the Code states that there are different types of impervious pavements so the applicant would have flexibility to not have all asphalt.
von Tersch stated that one of the points with the landscaping issue was that greenspace would be lost. The attached garage would limit the accessibility to the north side of the yard. She was stuck on finding a hardship as well.
Goans said it seemed neighborhoods become obsolete and yet that obsolescence is the charm of the neighborhood. The tradition for the neighborhood was detached garages. Since there were other alternatives available he could not find a hardship either.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Goans, seconded by Blaufuss, to deny the variance request for 529 Tennessee Street as presented, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ITEM NO. 4: 1126 PARKSIDE DRIVE [PGP]
B-05-04-07: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code in the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2006 edition. The request is specifically to reduce the 30’ rear yard building setback requirement in an RS7 (Single-Dwelling Residential) District per Section 20-601(a) of the City Code, to a 21’ minimum rear yard setback measured from the rear property line. The property is legally described as Lot 8, Block 2, Parkside Addition in the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. The subject property is located at 1126 Parkside Drive. Submitted by Donald D. and D. Marie Graham, the property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Patterson introduced the item, a request for a variance to reduce the 30’ rear yard setback requirement at 1126 Parkside Drive. Staff recommended denial of the variance, but if the board went ahead and approved the variance, the following condition would be suggested:
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Donald Graham, property owner, stated that he had talked to the neighbor to the north of his house and he had no problems with the enclosed addition. The property behind was for sale. He went on to say that the addition of the sunroom would benefit he and his wife and that they wanted to build it as a 50 year wedding anniversary gift to each other.
Lane wanted clarification on what exactly the addition would be.
Mr. Graham replied the addition would be an enclosed sunroom.
Steve Miles, contractor for the applicant, showed the Board example pictures of what the sunroom would look like.
Marie Graham, property owner, stated she liked fresh air and would love to have the sunroom addition. She stated that there was already concrete there but not much overhang, so when she opens the door when it rains the rain comes into the house.
von Tersch inquired about the enclosure having just screening or actual windows.
Mr. Miles stated the enclosure would have windows with screens.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Lane stated that the standard issue was meeting the hardship criteria.
Goans had trouble seeing uniqueness in the project.
von Tersch said that maybe the applicant should try to design something on the north side of the house.
Lane pointed out that there was a bay window on the north side of the house.
Carpenter felt the situation was unique because the problem was caused by the developer who built the house, not the current owner.
Lane felt the hardship criteria had not been met. He stated that the Board was supposed to find that the five criteria were met, even though in many cases, it seems those decisions result in mandating the property do something that does not make a lot of sense. The only way around it would be to change the Code.
Ms. Graham commented that they cannot build the enclosure on the north side of the house because there was a bay window and no door on that side.
Mr. Miles stated that building the sunroom on a corner of the house would look like an eyesore.
Mr. Patterson stated that the hardship could be that the sunroom could not be built on the area that has enough room because of how the house was built.
Ms. Graham said the sun coming in the patio door bleaches the carpet which she felt was a hardship.
Lane advised Ms. Graham that hardship has to do with being able to use property as zoned. He did not think it would have an adverse effect on the neighbors because of the good screening but he still felt there needed to be a hardship reason.
Ms. Graham pointed out that the concrete was already there, they just want to put walls around it.
Lane asked how far the house was from the rear property line.
Mr. Patterson replied, 37 feet.
Goans stated that the hardship was not allowing the property owner the ability to use the property they way they want to.
Ms. Graham said she and her husband moved to Lawrence two years ago and they pay high taxes. She said they are trying to beautify the neighborhood and she did not understand not being able to add a sunroom.
Carpenter stated that the Board had to find a hardship to the property as zoned. The Board was not allowed to take into account economic hardship. He went on to say that the concrete patio was there when the applicant bought the house and the backyard was labeled the backyard because the developer wanted to squeeze in another house behind it. Carpenter said he was inclined to say the requirements had been met but the Board was trapped by what the law specifies.
The Graham’s were upset about not being able to build a sunroom onto the existing concrete patio.
Lane stated the law was not directed at the Graham’s and that the Board was bound by the law that all five criteria have to be met.
Mr. Graham wanted to know if they could build the sunroom if the size was reduced to 12’x12’.
Lane replied that even if the sunroom was 12’x12’ it would still be in the setback.
von Tersch wondered if the Graham’s could purchase footage of the neighbors yard.
Lane said that probably would not be possible because then the neighbors would not meet the required setback.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Blaufuss, seconded by Goans, to deny the variance request for 1126 Parkside Drive as presented, due to all five required conditions per Section 20-1309(g)(1), not being met.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ITEM NO. 2: MINUTES
Changes were noted in the April 5, 2007 minutes.
Motioned by Lane, seconded by Blaufuss, to approve the January 4, 2007 meeting minutes as revised.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
ITEM NO. 5: MISCELLANEOUS
a) Receive and discuss possible update to BZA By-Laws so they correspond to the new Land Development Code.
Mr. Patterson recommended not approving the BZA By-Laws just yet and allow at least a months time to consider the changes. Term of office may need to be discussed.
Blaufuss questioned why the document states to elect a secretary.
Mr. Patterson stated that because the Code actually says that.
Blaufuss wanted to take the word “consecutive” out of section 2 and 3.
Goans recommended all new board members and existing board members be provided with copies of the new By-Laws.
The Board discussed the changes to the By-Laws.
Blaufuss asked if an applicant appeals a BZA decision were the minutes part of the record.
Mr. Patterson replied, yes.
Blaufuss stated that section 4 should say that the “secretary should keep.”
Mr. Miller suggested a few wording changes.
b) Consider any other business to come before the Board.
Mr. Patterson advised that there would be 3 variance and 1 sign variance on the July BZA agenda.
ADJOURN – 8:20 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.