ITEM NO. 5: DR-06-63-06 917 Delaware Street; Rezoning; Certified Local Government Review. The property is located in the environs of the East Lawrence Industrial District, Register of Historic Kansas Places. Submitted by Korb Maxwell for Robert and Molly Krause, the property owners of record.
Staff showed pictures of the main (east) elevation and a zoning map to show the location of the subject property in relation to the listed property.
Korb Maxwell, Polsenelli Law Firm, spoke on behalf of the applicants, explaining the intent to bring into conformance a private dining facility that had once been operating on the subject property. Mr. Maxwell said the current zoning allowed the existing single-family use and catering business. A private dining operation had also been established on the property, but the applicants removed the business and came forward with this rezoning request when they were informed that the business was in violation of the Zoning Code. They requested a rezoning to allow them to return their successful private dining enterprise to their residence.
Mr. Maxwell made several points in support of the proposal:
It was noted that stipulated zoning is a new concept for Lawrence, brought about with the recently adopted new Code.
Hickam asked if the applicant’s had spoken with Planning Staff when the building was modified in 2002 and if they had been clear about the intended private dining use, since this issue should have been identified at that time. Mr. Maxwell said the project went through Board of Zoning Appeals review and that “a previous director of planning” had discussed the project with the Krause’s.
Meyer said it would have been wise to look into the zoning question before putting so much money into the project. Mr. Maxwell said the applicant’s admitted openly that the private dining use had been in violation, but noted that the use was removed when the violation was found, and that the only question today was whether it was a suitable fit for the neighborhood. He reiterated that the building modifications were not at issue here and had never been a violation, only the use.
Alstrom noted the Staff Report comment that there were no documents provided supporting the claim that the proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Maxwell said the use would be just as compatible as it was today, since no further exterior changes were proposed. He stated again that the exterior modifications done previously were not subject to HRC review because the East Lawrence Historic District was not established at that time.
It was discussed that it was unusual for the HRC to review only use, not structure.
The Commission questioned the applicant’s claim that there were “no complaints” about the business, since there were several letters of opposition in their packets. Mr. Maxwell clarified that no complaints were made to the City while the business was operating. It was suggested that the neighbors might not have understood what was going on at the property, since the business was not operating legally.
There was discussion about the history of businesses operating out of private residences in this neighborhood, both legally and illegally. Mr. Maxwell said he hoped this case would set a good precedent for other operations coming forward to bring more of the existing mixed uses of the area into conformance.
Hickam pointed out that all the written communications provided were in opposition to the proposal, and the applicant had only anecdotal evidence of “strong neighborhood support.” Ms. Zollner said several letters of support were submitted to the Planning Commission and several speakers expressed their support at the August Planning Commission meeting.
Ron Schneider spoke on behalf of his client, Dave Evans, the adjacent neighbor “most impacted by this request.” Mr. Evans’ primary concerns centered on noise, smoke and privacy associated with the Krause’s customers congregating outside before and after their party. Mr. Schneider said that, if additional stipulations could be agreed upon to mitigate these concerns, Mr. Evans would have no remaining opposition.
Mr. Schneider said it should be understood that the proposed business would not serve the neighborhood - very few East Lawrence residents could afford this kind of dining experience.
Mr. Schneider said the President of the ELNA had provided a letter stating that the Association voted 8-1 against the proposal. With this in mind, Mr. Evans wished the Commission to consider his main points of concern:
Mr. Schneider explained that some of these factors had a direct effect on his client’s use of his own property while others posed a more general environmental impact to the entire area. If these concerns could be adequately met in a manner that all parties could agree upon, Mr. Evans said he would withdraw his voice of opposition.
Mr. Schneider said there had been a recent meeting between Mr. Evans and the Krause’s, where they discussed the possible enclosure of the current patio on the subject property for use specifically as a gathering place for the Krause’s customers. Mr. Evans said this, in conjunction with other covenants to be recorded with the Register of Deeds, would suitably address his concerns.
It was noted that the referenced covenants would echo the zoning ordinance but would give the neighborhood some assurance that enforcement of the rules would be possible.
The Commission expressed concern about the patio enclosure design, since this was not part of the current request and had been given no Staff review. It was verified that this kind of modification to the property would have to go through the normal full review process.
Sizemore spoke about the multiple factors involved in determining the business’s impact on the neighborhood and the environs, including hours of operation, deliveries, traffic generation, etc. Although these elements were not specifically addressed in the presentation, he felt comfortable saying the proposal would be appropriate in relation to the nearby district. However, he pointed out, this did not answer the question of how the use would fit the residential character of the environs. He said the dialogue between the applicants and other area residents was encouraging.
Hickam said there were several issues for potential comment, but tonight’s review should strictly relate to the suitability of the proposed zoning for the environs – whether this use was consistent with the history of use in the area and on the property. He said he did not have great concern in supporting that single element, but he had significant concerns about the other issues that were not at hand tonight but were still troubling, including
· The negative impact of this proposal on nearby historic properties that were not yet protected by a district.
· Giving an impression of “rewarding bad behavior,” i.e. giving approval to a facility that had been operating without the proper permissions.
· Changes already made to the structure have damaged the historic nature of the property.
Veatch expressed support for the Staff recommendation, saying the guidelines required a compelling reason for rezoning from a properties historic zoning. This property was historically zoned and used as a residence and he did not see adequate cause to approve a change. If the Commission were going to consider such a change, they would need to see documentation of how the negative impacts would be mitigated.
It was suggested that many of the Commission’s concerns, while valid, were under the purview of other Boards and Commissions.
Motioned by Veatch, seconded by Marvin to deny the Certified Local Government Review for the rezoning request at 917 Delaware Street, based on the factors identified in the Staff Report and a determination that it would encroach upon, damage or destroy the environs of a listed property.
Motion carried unanimously, 6-0