LAWRENCE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

MINUTES

JANUARY 8, 2004 – 7:20 P.M., CITY MANAGER’S CONFERENCE ROOM, FOURTH FLOOR OF CITY HALL AT SIXTH AND MASSACHUSETTS STREET, LAWRENCE, KANSAS

MEMBERS PRESENT:   Chairman Herndon, Mr. Fizell, Mr. Hannon and Mr. Santee

STAFF PRESENT:  Mr. Guntert, Mr. Patterson and Ms. Saker

ITEM NO. 1:       COMMUNICATIONS

· Letter requesting extension of the variance granted for The Church of Latter-Day Saints property on W. 15^th Street

· No ex parte communications were disclosed

· No abstentions or deferrals were requested

ITEM NO. 2:       MINUTES

Two typographical errors were noted in the minutes of the December 4, 2003 meeting.

Motioned by Mr.  Hannon, seconded by Mr. Herndon to approve the December 2003 minutes as revised.

Motion carried 3-0-1, with Mr. Fizell abstaining due to his absence from the meeting.

ITEM NO. 3: 420 TALL GRASS DRIVE

B-12-34-03: 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, 2001.  The requested variance is from the provision in Section 20-608 of said City Code, which requires a 30’ minimum rear yard building setback from the property line.  The applicant seeks to reduce the rear yard setback to 15’, which will allow for the construction of a 15’ x 28’ addition to the existing residence.  The subject property is located at 420 Tall Grass Drive and is legally described as:  Lot 6, Block 8, Westland Addition in the City of Lawrence.  Submitted by Kenton Knowles, applicant for the property owner of record, Nadereh Nassari.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Patterson explained the variance request was for a reduction in the rear yard setback from 30’ to 15’ in order to construct an addition to the existing house.

Staff was recommending denial of the request, based on the determination that it did not meet the Five Criteria, specifically:

• The proposed addition was likely to affect the property rights of the adjacent property owners.
• No significant hardship was created by denial – the property had existed as a functional dwelling unit for over 20 years.  Additionally, an addition could still be constructed either in an alternate location or of a smaller size without violating the Code requirements.

It was established that the area property owners had been informed of the request per notification standards and Staff had received no comments, either negative or positive, from those owners.

It was noted that a 15’ utility easement existed inside the property line of the subject property.  The proposed addition would sit directly on but would not encroach upon this easement.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Kenton Knowles, architectural designer and builder, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He explained the addition was proposed to the northwest to take the best advantage of natural lighting, as well as to preserve the extensive landscaping existing on the south side of the rear yard.

It was clarified that the addition was proposed as a separate structure – although it would be quite near the primary structure – due to placement and utility connection complications.  There would also be a separate entrance to the addition. 

Ms. Nassari, property owner, said the addition was initially proposed for use as an artists’ studio, but would be equipped with plumbing and electricity so it could function as a separate dwelling unit, possibly for rental in the future for supplemental income.

PUBLIC COMMENT

No member of the public spoke on this Item.

BOARD DISCUSSION

It was established that using the addition as a separate dwelling unit was not allowed under the Zoning Ordinance in this zoning district (RS-2).  If the addition were actually connected to the primary structure, no more than 3 unrelated individuals could reside in the house.

It was clarified that the addition would not have its own kitchen, and discussed whether this precluded definition as a separate dwelling unit.

Mr. Santee was uncomfortable with considering this request without more design information.  Mr. Knowles said the design had been left purposely vague until it had been established what the Board would allow. 

It was suggested that preserving the existing garden was not enough to base approval on, especially since there was so much space available elsewhere on the lot.

The Board discussed the project in relation to the Five Criteria, noting specific ways in which they felt this proposal did not meet the guidelines for granting a variance:

• The circumstances were not unique.
• There was no significant hardship because it would be possible to build the addition without a variance.
• The situation was created through the action of the applicant.

Mr. Hannon stated that, in his opinion, a 15’ encroachment was too much.  It was noted from looking at the aerial photograph, that there were no other rear year encroachments in the area.

Chairman Herndon pointed out that the Board’s concerns were centered on the encroachment, not on the possible use of the addition as a rental unit.

It was suggested that the applicant should investigate other location and design options that would keep the project within the confines of the Code.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Chairman Herndon, seconded by Mr. Hannon to deny the variance from the required rear yard setback. 

          Motion carried unanimously 4-0.

ITEM NO. 4:       MISCELLANEOUS

a) Request for an extension to the variance granted for the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints, 1625 W. 15^th Street.

Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Fizell to approve a 90-day extension to the variances granted for 1625 W. 15^th Street.

           Motion carried unanimously, 4-0.

ADJOURN – 7:48 p.m.

Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office.