MINUTES
APRIL 1, 2004 – 7:00 P.M., CITY COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, FIRST FLOOR OF CITY HALL AT SIXTH AND MASSACHUSETTS STREET, LAWRENCE, KANSAS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Goans, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Santee, Mr. Fizell, Mr. Herndon and new Board member Mr. Lane
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Guntert, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Tully and Ms. Saker
ITEM NO. 1: COMMUNICATIONS
· There were no new communications for the Board.
· Mr. Hannon said he had held ex parte discussions with the applicants involved in Items 4 & 5.
· No items were requested for deferral.
ITEM NO. 2: MINUTES
No changes were requested to the minutes of the March 2004 meeting.
Motioned by Mr. Goans, seconded by Mr.Hannon to approve the minutes of the March 4, 2004 meeting as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0-1 with Mr. Lane in abstention
Swearing in of witnesses
B-02-03-04: 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. The variance is from the requirement for a 15’ greenspace buffer along a property line abutting a street right-of-way per the provisions of Section 20-1216(a) of said City Code. The applicant is asking to reduce this setback to a minimum of 5’ along the south boundary, which adjoins the northern edge of Lincoln Street right-of-way. The request is for the following legally described property: All of Lots 58, 59, 60, 122, 123 & 124, in that part of the city known as North Lawrence Addition No. 2 in the City of Lawrence. Said described property is generally known as 601 North 2nd Street. Submitted by C. L. Maurer with Landplan Engineering, for Alexander Plotnikov, property owner of record. [Deferred by the Board of Zoning Appeals at the March 4 meeting at the request of the applicant.]
Chairman Herndon indicated he would abstain from this Item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully introduced the request for a variance to reduce the minimum greenspace buffer along the property line abutting a street right-of-way from 15’ to 5’. He described the zoning, uses and rights-of-way of the surrounding area.
Mr. Tully explained that the City Commission approved a site plan for the subject area in November 2002 that showed a 15’ greenspace buffer including a trash enclosure at the rear of the property. The applicant now proposed moving the trash enclosure into the 15’ greenspace buffer area to make space for an electrical transformer box.
The approved site plan was currently in revision to deal with a driveway that had been built out of conformance, but this was a side issue that should not impact the Board’s consideration.
It was noted that the applicant would be acquiring a wedge of land from County to “square off” his own property and modify (expand) the parking lot and associated greenspace.
Staff was not aware if alternate locations for the transformer were considered that would keep the property within the confines of the approved site plan.
In Staff’s opinion, the case did not meet the Five Criteria - it was not adequately proven that the situation was not created through action of the applicant or that denial would cause undue hardship. Staff recommended denial of the variance and suggested the applicant consider alternate placement of the trash enclosure and/or the transformer.
It was established that the transformer was less than 5 square feet in area, but required a specified circumference of open space for access.
It was clarified that the curbing shown around the existing property line was not based on tonight’s variance but on the currently approved site plan. This curbing would have to be removed and replaced to City standard once the new land was acquired.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant, giving a brief history of the property’s development since 2000. The land was purchased at auction with the understanding that the right-of-way on Lincoln would be acquired as well, eliminating the need for a variance for the proposed site modification.
Although the City had annexed the property, the County retained the right-of-way, and was unwilling to sell that land to the applicant even though it was unlikely that section of Lincoln would ever be extended.
Mr. Mauer described the other options considered, explaining the location of the transformer was restricted by existing easements and power lines/poles. In his opinion, the situation was created by these restrictions set by KPL, not the applicant.
The applicant stated that denial of the greenspace reduction would necessitate placement of the trash enclosure near the front of the business, which would be unsuitable aesthetically and would create access problems for trash pick-up vehicles.
It was established that the trash receptacle must be 12’ wide per City standard and the transformer must sit 3’ – 5’ away from the building, with 10’ of access space in front.
The Board discussed design and dimension options, determining a design some felt would adequately accommodate both trash and transformer while maintaining the 15’ greenspace buffer.
It was verified that the additional paved area (following the new land acquisition) would increase the parking area by approximately 1500 square feet.
It was noted that the north side setback was 0’ per C-4 zoning regulations. Therefore, if this was a side yard instead of a (defunct) street right-of-way, the setback would be 0’. It was discussed that the right-of-way was not likely to be used and that KPL would need vehicular access to the transformer.
Alex Plotnikov, property owner, explained the problems with the design created by the Board. Vehicular access to the trash and the transformer would be restricted and the trash receptacle would be located against the business’s windows. He asked for the variance to allow him to use his land more efficiently and make the area more aesthetically pleasing.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board asked if any member of Staff was aware of any plans to extend this section of Lincoln. Mr. Guntert replied there was no such proposal as part of the 2005-2010 Capital Improvements Project.
It was acknowledged that the Zoning Ordinance was written to address a situation in which the setback faced an actual street. This was not and probably would not be the case here.
There was concern that use of the right-of-way would be needed in the future and suggested restrictions be placed on the potential approval to ensure the City would retain the ability to do so. The property owner could be required to vacate the full 15’ of right-of-way if such an event occurred.
Staff was asked to address the floodplain concern raised in a letter from a neighbor. Mr. Tully said the project would result in an additional 1500 square feet of pavement. A Floodplain Development Permit was required for the original site plan, so the impervious surface calculation would have to be changed and the fill modified accordingly. These concerns were more closely related to the revised site plan that would go before the City Commission, rather than this variance.
It was verified that the driveway had already been constructed and was not in conformance with the approved site plan.
It was noted that variances ran with the property, so a change in ownership would not nullify the variance.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Goans to approve the variance, based on the following condition:
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was discussed whether wording should be modified to exclude some forms of public use from the vacation requirement, such as sidewalks, jogging trails, walking paths, etc. Mr. Goans explained he specifically worded his motion to include any an all public uses, allowing the City full use of the right-of-way in the future.
Staff recommended addition of a condition that approval be subject to approval of a revised site plan.
ACTION TAKEN
The revised motion on the floor was to grant a variance to allow reduction of the greenspace buffer between the property line and the street right-of way from 15’ to a minimum of 5’, subject to the following conditions:
1. In the event that the City proposes any public use of the Lincoln Street right-of-way, the variance shall become null and void and the property owner shall have no recourse but to vacate the full 15’ greenspace buffer at his own expense; and
2. Approval of a revised Site Plan.
Mr. Fizell seconded the revised motion
Motion carried 5-1-1, with Mr. Santee voting in opposition and Mr. Herndon abstaining.
B-02-04-04: 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 variance is from the provisions in Section 20-1312 of said City Code, which regulates the size for an accessory building to not exceed a maximum size of 30 percent of the required rear yard. The applicant is asking for approval of an accessory building size of 572 s.f., which is 122 s.f. larger than permitted by Code (450 s.f. allowed). The second variance is from the provisions of Section 20-1209(a) of said City Code that does not allow any part of a parking area other than the access way to be located within 25 feet of a street right-of-way line. The applicant is asking to reduce this setback to a minimum of 0 feet. The property is located at 1800 Illinois Street and is legally described as: Lot 16, Block 13, University Place Addition in the City of Lawrence. Submitted by Richard T. Boeshaar, Emily A. Boeshaar and Timothy R. Boeshaar, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully introduced the Item, a request to increase the maximum allowable rear yard coverage of an accessory building and to allow part of the parking area other than the access way to fall within 25’ of the street right-of-way.
The applicant requested to construct a two-car garage with storage space measuring 572 square feet (26’ X 22’), which would equal 45% rear yard coverage. 450 square feet would be allowed by Code, covering 30% of the rear yard.
Staff recommended approval of the first variance, with the stipulation that the garage measure 528 square feet (24’ X 22’), based on Board precedent.
Regarding the second variance, the applicant asked for a variance that would allow construction of a 700 square foot paved sport court extending from the new garage to the street right-of-way. The applicant had stated that the court would likely be used for additional off-street parking for residents and guests of the single-family home.
Although it was recognized that this neighborhood faced significant parking issues, Staff was not able to recommend approval of the second variance. This recommendation was further supported by the fact that the court was proposed to extend 7’ into the public right-of-way, which was further prohibited by Code.
It was established that the proposed garage would take access to the alley via a 6’ apron. Also, the existing alley was gravel and would need to be upgraded to City standards.
It was clarified that the Board was not involved in the potential use of the paved area (sport court, parking), only with the potential encroachment into the setback and public right-of-way.
It was noted that, as a corner lot, there were no setback issues related to the proposed garage.
The Board discussed that the sport court would not require a variance if the applicant had not stated parking as a potential use, as long as the court did not extend past the property line. It was suggested the court be allowed with a required fence to prohibit parking.
Staff had suggested the garage be located on the property line, with the court behind so parking would not be restricted. The applicants had not been in favor of that design option.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Emily Boeshaar, property owner, explained they had intended to revise their request tonight to reduce the court by 7’, so to fit within the property line. The Board thanked the applicant(s) for being forthright about their intent to park on the proposed court.
Mrs. Boeshaar explained the size of the garage requested was to accommodate two cars (larger vehicles such as SUV’s), a workbench, bicycles, trash receptacles and recycling bins. She did not think the requested size was out of proportion with the surrounding area.
Asked to address the design option suggested by Staff, Mrs. Boeshaar said the family wanted to add a deck and landscaping in the rear yard at some future time. The applicant intended to rebuild the existing fence once the other improvements were complete.
Chairman Herndon explained the lengthy process by which the Board had devised the 528 square foot policy they tried to apply evenly for two-car garages in neighborhoods with smaller lot sizes.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
It was suggested that the 24’ X 22’ garage would be acceptable, but there was disagreement about the appropriateness of the sport court/parking area, even if this area were not allowed to extend over the property line.
Those opposed to approving the second variance were not comfortable with permitting parking within the 25’ setback, although there were recognizable parking issues facing the neighborhood.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Herndon, seconded by Mr. Hicks to approve the variance to allow construction of a replacement garage, based on Staff’s interpretation of the Five Criteria and subject to the following condition:
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Motioned by Mr. Herndon, seconded by Mr. Hicks to deny the variance requested to allow construction of a paved parking area adjacent to and encroaching upon the public right-of-way, with the understanding that the applicant was able to construct a paved sport court in this approximate location without a variance.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
The Board discussed enforcement issues, expressing concern that the applicant was likely to utilize the sport court for parking in any case and there would be no way to prevent other neighbors from doing the same.
It was suggested that, since it was likely parking would take place on the paved area, it should be regulated. Mr. Herndon said the Board did not have the ability to grant this use, since the request for a parking area did not meet the Five Criteria. It was suggested that the location of the subject property in an area faced with parking shortages and the number of people in the applicant’s family could be used to support a claim of hardship.
It was established that both sides of the discussion were in favor of allowing construction of the paved area, but there was a difference of opinion about whether the Board should or had the ability to permit parking on the paved area, although both sides understood this use was likely to occur. There was discussion about which option was procedurally correct.
ACTION TAKEN
Mr. Goans made a substitute motion to approve the variance to allow a paved area adjacent to the public right-of-way for combined use as a sport court and accessory parking area, based on the following findings of fact:
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was suggested the motion be revised to include a stipulation that the paved area could not encroach into the public right-of-way, but must be contained within the property line.
Staff recommended the original motion be withdrawn or voted upon.
There was additional discussion about the precedent set by either approval or denial.
ACTION TAKEN
Mr. Herndon (motion) and Mr. Hicks (2nd) agreed to withdraw the original motion.
Motion on the floor, as revised was to approve the variance to allow a paved area of 570 square feet within the 25’ setback but not to extend outside the property line for combined use as a sport court and accessory parking area, based on the following findings of fact:
Mr. Hannon seconded the revised (substitute) motion on the floor.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Staff was asked to address the motion on the floor from an enforcement standpoint. Mr. Tully replied that the Building Code required patios to maintain a 3’ setback from property lines, so the project would need “tweaking” before it could obtain a building permit.
There was continued discussion about the precedence of this (potential) approval and future similar requests for additional parking areas in the Old Townsite. The Board considered how difficult it would be for this project to obtain a building permit since the parking use was clearly prohibited by Code.
It was acknowledged that the property owner might surreptitiously build what could be used as a parking lot, even if this use were prohibited, but this was not within the purview of the Board.
The Board discussed design alternatives, establishing a north-south orientation would address the parking area issues but create access and turning radius complications.
PUBLIC COMMENT
This section was reopened per public request.
Caleb Morse, 1733 Mississippi spoke on behalf of the University Place Neighborhood Association. Mr. Morse said the Association understood and did not object to the applicant’s need for a larger garage. However, there was concern that the potential parking area would be used for long-term storage.
The importance of the property’s eventual change in ownership was noted.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the variance to allow a paved area of 570 square feet within the 25’ setback but not to extend outside the property line for combined use as a sport court and accessory parking area, based on the following findings of fact:
Motion to approve failed to carry, 1-6, with Mr. Hannon voting in favor.
B-03-05-04: 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 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 applicant’s request is to allow both required parking spaces to be located on the driveway in the front yard setback of the property. They are requesting the variance to allow the existing garage to be converted into a handicap accessible living space for a family member. The request applies to the following legally described property: Lot 32 in Learnard’s Subdivision of a portion of Block 5 in that part of the City of Lawrence known as South Lawrence, in Douglas County, Kansas. Said described property is generally known as 2006 Louisiana Street. Submitted by Barbara J. VanCortlandt Palmer, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the Item, a request to allow both of the two required on-site parking spaces to be located within the front yard of the subject property. Code allowed only one space in the front or side yard, while the other space had to be in a garage or in the rear yard. The applicant proposed converting the existing garage area to living space to accommodate the property owner’s father.
Staff recommended approval with conditions stated in the Staff Report, based on the opinion that the Five Criteria were met.
It was verified that the property would retain its single-family use. Staff’s conditions required utilities for the new living quarters could not be split from the primary structure.
Mr. Patterson showed where the two parking spaces were proposed, one in and one adjacent to the existing driveway. It was discussed whether the property owner would have to pave the gravel area adjacent to the driveway. It was established that there were a number of paving alternatives open to the applicant, although the driveway apron would have to be concrete.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Barbara VanCoutrtland-Palmer, property owner, said she was not opposed to adding a condition to pave the adjacent parking area, as this was her intent.
Ms. VanCourtland-Palmer explained her intent to move her wheelchair-bound father into the new living area created from the existing garage and noted there were representatives present to discuss the issue of reasonable accommodations if the Board felt this was necessary.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board made no addition comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Herndon, seconded by Mr. Goans to approve the variance to allow both required on-site parking spaces to be located in the front yard, subject to the following revised conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the conversion of the garage to living space;
2. The residence shall remain as a single-family dwelling. The converted living space will be part of the same single-family residence and will not have separate utility meters, separate mailing address or be rented out as a separate dwelling unit;
3. The existing graveled portion of the driveway parking area will be paved to City driveway standards per Section 20-1217.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 6: MISCELLANEOUS
a) Request for 90-day extension of variances granted for Jesus Christ Church of Latter-Day Saints, 1629 W. 19th Street [B-07-22-03]
b) Request for 90-day extension of variances granted for Hobbs Taylor Lofts, 8th & New Hampshire [B-06-16-03]
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Fizell to approve a 90-day extension for the variances granted for the Jesus Christ Church of Latter-Day Saints and the Hobbs-Taylor Lofts.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.