BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Members present: Blaufuss, Bowman, Carpenter, Emerson, Goans, Lane, von Tersch
Staff present: Patterson, J. Miller, Parker
______________________________________________________________________
ITEM NO. 1: COMMUNICATIONS
ITEM NO. 2: MINUTES
Multiple minor changes were noted in the March minutes by Lane.
Blaufuss noted minor changes as well.
Motioned by Lane, seconded by Goans, to approve the amended adjusted minutes from March 1, 2007.
Approved 5-0-2 with Bowman and Carpenter abstaining.
Swearing in of witnesses.
ITEM NO. 3: 746 EAST 27TH STREET [PGP]
B-03-02-07: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code in the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2006 edition. The first request is specifically to reduce the 50’ building setback requirement along the north property line where the property adjoins a residentially zoned district per Section 20-601(b) of the City Code, to a 27’ minimum setback in the northwestern portion of the property for a material storage building; and, to a minimum of 2.5’ at the closest point for a retaining wall exceeding 3’ in height above ground level. The applicant is also seeking a variance from the 15’ building setback requirement for retaining walls to be constructed along the south and west property lines where the property adjoins a non residential district. The second request is from the parking lot setback, landscaping and buffer yard standards in Sections 20-908, 20-914 and Article 10 of the City Code for an existing industrially developed property being site planned for expansion of the use. The property is legally described as Lots 1, 2 & 8, in Lawrence Industrial Park, an Addition in the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. The subject property is located at 746 East 27th Street. Submitted by Angela Sharp with Bartlett & West Engineers for Westar Energy, the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Paul Patterson presented the item and stated that in looking at the five different conditions, the first one being uniqueness, this is a 1967 plat of the property located in the north west corner of the industrial park, the site is remote and isolated. The site is adjacent to the Haskell University. A residential zoned district is to the north. The other item to keep in mind is there is a 12’ ridge where the applicant wanted grading. He said that the HRC administrator had reviewed and approved this and staff can support the requested three variances based upon the five conditions as listed in the staff report.
Blaufuss asked Mr. Patterson if he had found any uniqueness to the project.
Mr. Patterson stated the area was remote, there were trees to the north and to the west and the impact on adjacent property was minimal.
Lane asked Mr. Patterson if the plat of road on RS10 was platted in 1800 or more recently and if someone was going to develop it.
Mr. Patterson said no submittals had been received.
Goans asked if the entrance was from 23rd street.
Lane said he did not think the entrance was as far north as 23rd street.
Carpenter said the west side looked like it was being moved further east, away from the trail.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Ms. Wendy Van Duyne, landscape architect with Bartlett and West Engineers, stated the height of the wall was 14’ at the highest point in the north west corner.
Goans asked if the storage area will be moved further to the east away from the trail.
Mr. Patterson stated the aerial was from 2003 and showed the building.
Goans said he had driven the property recently and the retaining wall was not that obvious.
Ms. Van Duyne said it was a proposed retaining wall.
Goans asked if the public were to walk the trail if they would be walking next to the wall.
Ms. Van Duyne said yes but vegetation would be planted.
Goans asked if the grade would be raised.
Ms. Van Duyne answered yes.
Lane asked if there had been communication with the neighbors.
Ms. Van Duyne said she had not spoken with neighbors, and was unaware if Ms. Sharp had.
Mr. Pat Trione, Project Manager with Westar Energy, stated they would be utilizing the pole storage shed to gain storage, and moving the service yard from the east to the west. Mr. Trione said the new facility is twice the size as the old facility to better serve the capacity of the community and Haskell University had given their approval.
Lane asked if the area was in a flood plain.
Ms. Van Duyne stated she does not know.
Mr. Patterson said the area was not in a flood plain.
Carpenter asked where the water goes now.
Mr. Trione stated it flows right to the northwest corner. Westar Energy had a retaining facility in the event of a transformer spill.
Carpenter asked if it drains into the wetlands.
Mr. Trione answered yes.
Emerson asked what the distance was from the trail to the wall.
Ms. Van Duyne said it was 2.5 to 3 feet from the property line, and 10 feet from the trail.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Jim Black stated he is one of the owners of 2711 Oregon, south of the vacant lot, and that he had received the mailing. He did not have a concern other than the storm water. He said he had done grading and rocked the area in 1993 to keep water away from the building, and the water now runs back.
Emerson asked if the water runs back and north of Mr. Blacks building.
Mr. Black said the water runs away from his building, and that any improvement would be great, because the area was not maintained. There were a lot of trees, bottles, trash and debris so any improvement would be a big one. He said Westar Energy was a good neighbor; they kept the weeds down in the area. He asked how tall the retaining wall would be on the south side.
Lane said it appeared to be 4 feet at the corner.
Mr. Black asked if there would be underground conduit.
Lane answered yes.
Mr. Black said anything would be an improvement.
Goans stated the requirement for setback was 15 feet, Westar Energy was asking for 2.5 feet on the north line, which almost put the wall on the property line. On the west side they had requested 4 feet but it should be 10 feet and that was a discrepancy.
Mr. Trione clarified that Westar Energy was not asking for a variance on the west side. He stated that if the setback was 15 feet, they would comply but he was not concerned with the west side.
Lane asked if the application had changed because it appeared there was nothing requesting a variance on the west and south.
Mr. Patterson said nothing had changed, Staff wanted to show what was on the actual site plan.
Mr. Trione stated he stood corrected, that Staff caught something he was not aware of, that it would be Westar Energy’s request to build the facility as shown with the variances asked for in the lower retraining walls on the west and south.
von Tersch asked if there had been conversation regarding residential zoning on the north.
Lane stated that there was none other than the applicants. He assumed that property owner was notified according to the prescribed procedure, and had not submitted anything or appeared before the board, he stated he assumed they had no objection or they are on vacation.
Goans said that a 14 feet retaining wall facing a residentially zoned lot, only 2 feet from the property line was pretty intrusive. He said he would be concerned about the effect on the drainage in there. The water would appear to go to that corner from all directions.
Bowman said the surface area would not change.
von Tersch asked if the retaining wall created a dam.
Mr. Patterson explained there was a creek at the bottom where the water emptied to.
Goans asked if a retaining wall was added would the water flow to the west.
Mr. Trione replied yes.
Lane said he believed the compaction of soil along the north property line of Westar’s would probably kill all the trees because they were close to the property line.
Emerson stated he would like to hear from the property owner.
Bowman said he had driven by the property numerous times and this would be a drastic improvement.
Carpenter stated he had seen increased traffic on that trail as it is near Mary’s Lake.
Emerson said he had been on the trail and it seemed it would be an improvement to the trail but an insult to the residential area to the north.
Ms. Van Duyne stated she would like to make a point as to the trees adjacent to the proposed retaining wall, she understood that many of the homes are a significant distance away from the retaining wall, there would be other tree’s within the vicinity that would provide a little bit of screening.
Goans noted that the trees did not belong to Westar.
Carpenter asked if the variance was granted would it kill the neighbor’s trees.
Lane said the neighbor was not present to voice concerns.
Blaufuss said that was why the BZA members were present.
Carpenter said the value of the neighbor’s property might be reduced.
Mr. Trionne said that if the Planning Committee had concerns with the north residential area, Westar Energy would look at other options, and they would make the appropriate changes. He added the setback on the north for a retaining lot is not near as large a concern as the building set back being able to shorten the building set back to 27 feet and being able to relocate that building back there.
Goans asked if the variance on the north side was denied, what would be the height on the west side.
Lane said it varied but was reduced to 4 feet.
Mr. Trione summarized that Westar Energy wanted to be a good neighbor, and if there were concerns regarding residential on the north side, they would be flexible and meet standard set backs in that area. He stated the existing retaining wall on the east side of the property sat at 3.2 feet and they wanted to extend it to the west. He said if it needed to be torn down, from the building east, there was an existing retaining wall that was in non conformance with the set backs.
Blaufuss stated she would not have a problem with what was requested if she knew the property owners were aware of it.
Mr. Trione stated that if the original 15 feet on the north was imposed, it would not create a hardship.
Bowman asked if the applicant was withdrawing the request for the variance to the north.
Mr. Trione said yes.
Mr. Black stated proper notification had been sent to the property owners and they had a chance to respond.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Goans, seconded by Blaufuss, to approve the variance request for 746 East 27th Street, in accordance with the site plan and found in the body of the Staff report, subject to the following conditions:
1. The west and south property lines be in accordance with the site plans submitted, and in accordance with the findings of the staff report.
2. The setback for retaining walls in excess of 3 feet above ground level on the north properly line be denied due to the applicant indicating it would not be a hardship and therefore did not meet the requirements set forth in the statutes.
Blaufuss asked if the motions can be separated.
Motioned by Goans, seconded by Blaufuss, to add the reduction of the 50 feet setback along the north property line, be a minimum of 27 feet for relocation of the material storage building.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0
Motioned by Goans, seconded by Blaufuss, to approve condition number 3, the reduction of the 10 feet parking area equipment storage area setback, from the north property line to a minimum of 3.68 feet to acknowledge existing conditions, in accordance with the staff report.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0
Motioned by Goans, seconded by Blaufuss, to approve the reduction in setback for
retaining walls exceeding 3 feet in height above the ground, on the west and south property lines in accordance with the site plan submitted tonight and the findings of fact in the staff report.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0
Mr. Patterson stated there is the retaining wall on the north side, if it is over 3 feet in height it would be a structure, the 50 feet building set back would apply. He said it should be specifically stated that a minimum of a certain amount of feet from the north property line for the new retaining wall.
Goans asked if a variance needed to be granted to get to 15 feet.
Mr. Patterson stated yes.
Motioned by Goans, seconded by Lane, to approve a variance for the north retaining wall to 15 feet, in accordance with the findings of fact in the staff report.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0
ITEM NO. 4: MISCELLANEOUS
a) Receive and discuss possible update to BZA By-Laws so they correspond to the
new Land Development Code.
Mr. Lane stated he was looking for discussion on updates to the By-Laws. Article 4, Section 2, at the end of the first sentence should read chair person, instead of chair man. He asked if Section 8 of Article 5, on the third page, under abstention, should say financial interest.
Mr. John Miller, Staff Attorney, said he would check to confirm.
Lane stated he believed English was better.
Mr. Miller said he would check the statutes to confirm.
Lane stated under Article 6, Section 1, it referred to Appeals from the Provision of Zoning Ordinance, and asked if it is correct to read Zoning Ordinance or should it be put into parentheses after Zoning Ordinance that it is the Land Development Code.
Emerson said he would like for Article 4, Section 2 to read chair and vice chair.
Goans stated when he was chair person of the board he had been invited to attend a KLM, (Kansas League of Municipalities) seminar on conducting meetings and asked how Staff felt about going in that direction.
Mr. Patterson suggested discussing it now but bringing it to the agenda at a later date.
Goans agreed he would bring something to the next meeting for Staff to review.
Mr. Miller stated he strongly supported the suggestion to change and would assist from a legal and Staff perspective.
Goans asked Mr. Miller if he was familiar with KLM.
Mr. Miller stated he was familiar with KLM, had no objection to it, but could also suggest other options.
ADJOURN – 8:00 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.