BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2007 – 6:30 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Members present: Lowe, Bowman, Blaufuss, Lane, von Tersch, Carpenter, Kimball
Staff present: Miller, Patterson, Miller, Parker
______________________________________________________________________
ITEM NO. 1: COMMUNICATIONS
Patterson stated he had received one letter from the Oread Neighborhood Association Board and provided copies to the applicant and Board Members. He stated the Oread Neighborhood Association was in favor of Item 4 and Item 5.
Bowman, von Tersch, and Kimball abstained from the October 4, 2007 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes.
von Tersch stated she has had no communication regarding Item 4 and Item 5.
Patterson stated the applicants for Item 4 and Item 5 wish to switch the order in which they would be presented.
ITEM NO. 2: MINUTES
Lane requested to strike a sentence from page 5 of the October 4, 2007 meeting minutes.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Blaufuss, seconded by Kimball, to approve the October 4, 2007 minutes as amended.
Motion carried, 4-0-3.
ITEM NO. 3: SE BENEFIT DISTRICT NO. 1 SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION [MKM]
B-09-14-07: 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 requests are for a variance from the requirement for a parking area to be paved to City standards per Article 9, Section 20-913(e) of the City Code; and, from the requirement to provide curb and gutter around the perimeter of a parking area per Article 9, Section 20-913(i) of the City Code. The requests are related to the construction of a new sanitary sewer lift station located on the following legally described property: A tract of land in the Southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 13 South, Range 20 East of the 6th P.M. in Douglas County, Kansas described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence North 01o30’50” West, along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 566.86 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 88o29’10” East, 81.27 feet; thence along a curve to the right, 62.08 feet, said curve has a radius of 75.00 feet and a chord bearing South 67o48’05” East, 60.32 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence along a curve to the left 62.08 feet, said curve has a radius of 75.00 feet and a chord bearing South 67o48’05” East, 60.32 feet; thence North 88o29’10” East, 126.12 feet; thence North 01o30’50” West, 151.27 feet; thence South 88o29’10” West, 317.85 feet to a point on the West line of said Southwest Quarter, thence South 01o30’50” East, along the West line of said Southwest Quarter, 102.75 feet to the point of beginning, containing 41,458 square feet or 0.952 acres, more or less in the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. The subject property is approximately 600 feet north of N 1300 Road on the east side of E 1700 Road. Submitted by Aaron Gaspers with Peridian Group, Inc. for the City of Lawrence, the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Miller presented the item.
Blaufuss asked Ms. Miller who would be parking at the pump station.
Ms. Miller stated maintenance employees would park at the pump station.
Lane asked if there should be a time period placed on the condition.
Ms. Miller stated a time period could be a condition to allow Staff to review the area for pavement.
Lane asked what a reasonable time period would be.
Ms. Miller stated six months or a year would be an appropriate time period.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Aaron Gaspers, Peridian Group, represented the City of Lawrence to acquire the variance. He said the City was requesting to keep the gravel the way it currently was so the area would remain rural, and not become an urban island. Mr. Gaspers said to pave the area at this time would be a waste of money.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
von Tersch said it would be unreasonable for the City to pave the area at this time.
Blaufuss asked what a reasonable time period would be.
Carpenter said it would be the most cost efficient to pave the area at the same time the road was being paved.
von Tersch stated the road would be paved by Douglas County.
Lane said a condition of one year would be reasonable.
von Tersch said two years was a reasonable condition.
Mr. Patterson said it would be appropriate to allow the flexibility of one year.
Lane said the condition would read within one year following the paving of the road.
Blaufuss stated the variance could expire within one year after the paving of the road.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lane, seconded by Blaufuss, to approve the variance based on the Staff recommendation with the conditions as modified.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 5: 1341 OHIO STREET [PGP]
B-09-13-07: 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 to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces required for a congregate residence, with 8 bedrooms, from 6 spaces per the provisions in Article 9, Section 20-902 of the City Code, to a minimum of 5 parking spaces. The second variance is to allow a reduction in the front building setback of 25 feet per Article 6, Section 20-601 of the City Code, to a minimum of 12.5 feet to allow for the construction of a front porch addition to the dwelling. The property is legally described as Lot 229 on Ohio Street in the Original Townsite of the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. The subject property is located at 1341 Ohio Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for HDD of Lawrence, LLC, attention Jon R. Davis, the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson presented the item.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, stated 1339 Ohio street and 1341 Ohio street were both good projects. He said he was in front of this Board semi frequently and he was disappointed in the staff report, but was ecstatic to find a variance was not needed on the front yard set back. Mr. Werner said by adding a front porch to the structure at 1341 Ohio street it would make it look like an old house. He said technically the applicant was requesting a reduction in parking spaces. He said the property had the only driveway within the block of Ohio street and the only front parking. He said he could provide a curb cut, a driveway and a lot of pavement to allow one car to park there. Mr. Werner explained that a curb cut would take away the one parking spot on the street that was allowed and it only seemed logical the variance would be the best answer. He said approval of the variance would only improve the property. Mr. Werner stated he appreciated Ms. Francisco’s letter recommending approval for the variance.
Lowe said the way he read the proposal was that the curb cut would be removed.
Mr. Werner stated the existing curb cut would need to be removed. He said they would install the entire pavement and curb cut if needed. He said that would affect the one parking spot on the street.
Lane asked if a four percent slope could be placed within the driveway.
Mr. Werner said a four percent slope had been discussed with Staff, and it was determined it was not part of the City code.
Lane said it had appeared there would have to be a lot of sidewalk modification for accessibility across the driveway.
Mr. Werner said it was a hardship and a lot of work.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Patterson stated the Board could find 1341 Ohio street was unique and there was a hardship.
Lane said it had appeared various members of the neighborhood would be in favor of granting the variance. He said he was willing to accept the argument to take out the one parking space in the front yard because it seemed to be a reasonable trade off with the parking space on the street.
Kimball said the property would be more attractive by not having the driveway in the yard.
Carpenter asked if the site plan occupancy was limited to eight.
Patterson stated for this boarding house, the occupancy stated by the applicant would limit it to a maximum of eight.
Lane asked if there had been contact with the property owner to the South of 1341 Ohio street.
Mr. Davis said he was a business partner with the property owner to the South of the property and the partner was fine with the proposal.
Lane said he did not know how this would affect the rights of the adjacent property owners.
Carpenter said the Board never sets a precedent because to receive a variance it had to be proven the situation was unique.
Lane said there would be no precedent set. He said this was a unique situation. Lane asked Staff if it would put the City at risk if the variance was granted.
John Miller, Staff Attorney, said the Board of Zoning Appeals would not be setting a precedent and the City of Lawrence would not be put at risk if the variance was approved.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lane, seconded by Carpenter, to grant the variance request from six parking spaces on site to five parking spaces according to Staff findings and based upon discussion of the Board.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 4: 1339 OHIO STREET [PGP]
B-10-15-07: 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 to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces required for a congregate residence, with 12 bedrooms, from 9 spaces per the provisions in Article 9, Section 20-902 of the City Code, to a minimum of 6 parking spaces. The second variance is to allow stacked parking to be established in the rear of the property off the alley. The applicant cites the provisions of Section 20-908 in the City Code as the governing ordinance involved in this request. The property is legally described as Lot 227 on Ohio Street in the Original Town site of the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. The subject property is located at 1339 Ohio Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for HDD of Lawrence, LLC, attention Jon R. Davis, the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson presented the item.
Lane asked if the Board would be allowed to consider one parking space that was on two pieces of property.
Patterson said there was a provision that would allow the owner to have off site parking.
Lane asked if the parking space would be recorded with the Register of Deeds. He said it would be one parking space straddling two pieces of property.
Carpenter said the parking space would be recorded as an easement.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, stated the structure at 1339 Ohio street was unique because it was so large. He said there was an advantage to this structure because the property owner also owned the structure to the direct South at 1341 Ohio Street. Mr. Werner said six parking spots would better serve the area rather than ten spots that would not get used. Mr. Werner said with a Boarding House all of the occupants would know each other and they would work together to figure out parking issues. He said if the structure was a duplex, tandem parking would be allowed.
Lane asked Mr. Werner if he and his client had a preference to which type of parking would be used.
Mr. Werner said his client would like to reduce the required parking spaces from nine to six. Mr. Werner said it would require a lot of work and funds to add three extra parking spaces. He said he had been at the property daily and he had not had a problem finding a parking space. He said there were other advantages to not turning the structure into a duplex and it was the most consistent with what the Board had approved previously.
Lowe asked Mr. Werner what type of parking the property at 1334 Ohio street currently had.
Mr. Werner stated a variance had been approved to reduce the parking spaces at 1334 Ohio, from nine spaces to five spaces.
Lowe asked if there was twelve occupants residing at 1334 Ohio street and if it was similar to the structure at 1339 Ohio street.
Mr. Werner said Staff had recommended approval for 1334 Ohio street in 2003 and it had been occupied for three years.
Lowe asked if code requirements had changed since 2003.
Mr. Werner said there was a change in the code. He said he had received approval to add an addition to the back of 1334 Ohio street in 2003.
Lowe said the property at 1334 Ohio street was an attractive piece of property.
Mr. Werner said his client always does a great job with his projects. He said he had spoken with Ms. Francisco and the relationship with the Oread Neighborhood Association had improved.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Candice Davis said she would like to clarify she was not aware of an Oread Neighborhood Association discussion that suggested the neighborhood was in agreement for a variance at 1339 Ohio Street. She said she appreciated Staff following requirements for variance requests. Ms. Davis stated Jon Davis had done a nice job renovating properties, but this had proved the Board set precedent by granting a variance when it should not have been granted. She asked why there needed to be twelve bedrooms and why the property would not be rented to Kansas University professors or teachers. She said the price of real estate in the neighborhood had increased and the applicant had paid an enormous amount of money for the property. She said congregate homes become party houses, they serve liquor and it was illegal. Ms. Davis said tandem parking was a horrible mistake. She said just because this had been allowed in the past did not make it right. Ms. Davis said the only protection the neighborhood had was City Ordinances.
Jon Davis, owner of the property, stated when he purchased the property at 1339 Ohio street it had 14 bedrooms. He said most of these type of structures were not built as apartments in the beginning, most of them were in pretty bad shape, and he believed this was a life safety issue. He said he wanted to fix the property up and bring it up to City code. Mr. Davis said every property he had purchased he had renovated and cleaned up the property. He said he did have the option of purchasing these properties and leaving them as they were.
von Tersch asked Mr. Davis if the required number of parking spaces would be reduced by changing the property to a boarding house.
Mr. Davis said he could have 28 residents in the building now. He said he would like to change it to twelve bedrooms and twelve occupants.
von Tersch asked Mr. Davis if the parking requirement would be reduced if it was a boarding house. She said the desirability to have a boarding house instead of an apartment was because the parking requirement goes down. She stated it costs less because there would only be one kitchen versus seven.
Mr. Davis said he did not think that was a valid statement. He said he was not referring to new construction. Mr. Davis said his plan was to completely rehabilitate the structure.
Mr. Patterson said for a duplex it would be required to have one parking space per bedroom, plus one parking space for each ten units.
von Tersch asked what the parking requirement would be if there was seven apartments in the structure.
Mr. Patterson said if there were seven bedrooms, eight parking spaces would be required. He said if the property was wiped clean and the applicant would begin from scratch, the most dwelling units allowed would be four, with four people in each dwelling.
von Tersch asked if there was sixteen people living there how many parking spaces would be required.
Mr. Patterson said that would depend on the number of bedrooms and the number of people living there.
von Tersch asked what Mr. Davis’ reason was for requesting the structure to become a boarding house.
Mr. Davis stated the reason he wanted the property to become a boarding house was because boarding houses were in demand.
von Tersch asked Mr. Werner if the property was being converted to a boarding house because of the cost savings and the lower parking requirement.
Mr. Werner stated boarding houses were very expensive to construct. He said fire alarms, sprinklers and other safety devices would be installed and also more restrooms. He said the rehabilitation cost for a boarding house was more expensive than it was for a triplex. Mr. Werner said the issue was about the parking and he had read old reports that stated there were a lot of people who live close to campus that ride bicycles, or they walk and they do not own vehicles. Mr. Werner said that once these homes were cut up into a bunch of apartments they rarely go back to single family homes. He said there was a desire from the neighborhood and the Historic Resources Committee that the congregate living structures would convert back to single family homes but he did not believe that would happen. Mr. Werner said the area was not a single family neighborhood. He said the structure was across the street from The Hawk and The Wheel. Mr. Werner said most of these structures were not safe and he was trying to find a reasonable option.
von Tersch said she sympathized with what the applicant was trying to accomplish. She said the structure at 1334 Ohio street was heard from a totally different Board of Zoning Appeals. She said tandem parking might work at this location.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Lane stated he had seen other tandem parking around the City. He said it seemed to work somehow, but he did not know if the residents had a conflict with it. He said the fact that the code did not allow tandem parking was the issue.
Mr. Werner said he interpreted the code to read that if a structure was a duplex then the front and side yard parking spaces could be counted. He said the code did not say that if someone pulled in off of an alley that there would be four spaces in the driveway that would not be counted.
Blaufuss asked Mr. Werner if there was a gap between a parking lot and a driveway and Mr. Werner’s situation.
Lane asked what the maximum driveway width was.
Mr. Werner stated twenty six feet was the maximum driveway width. He said it was not an alley and if the Board would agree that the space was not an alley, a variance would not be needed.
Blaufuss asked Mr. Werner when the space becomes a parking lot. She said she agreed that residents would have more access to each others keys or could make some type of arrangement to access each others keys.
von Tersch said she thought it was more likely the parking would work and a number of people would park their vehicle and walk.
Mr. Werner said he was less frustrated with the Board, but it was very difficult to explain to his client that the staff report was changing.
Blaufuss said it was a surprise that there was a positive report and she was concerned that in the future the applicant would ask for stacking three vehicles.
Mr. Werner said the structure at 1339 Ohio street was larger than 4000 square feet. He said there was a substantial amount of work that came along with this and essentially the first floor would come out the door and stare at a concrete wall.
Lane asked if the variance was granted would the parking go from eight to six spaces or from seven to six spaces. He said that would reduce the number of occupants allowed.
Mr. Werner said his client would be better off turning the structure into a duplex. He said the structure could easily handle sixteen bedrooms if the parking was not limited.
Bowman asked if the structure would pay for itself if it was limited to eight bedrooms.
Mr. Werner said no it would not pay for itself if it was limited to eight bedrooms.
Carpenter said he would like to get back to the actual variance request.
Blaufuss said stacked parking would allow the correct amount of parking.
Carpenter said the parking problem was at night or the early morning hours. He said during the day time people were at work or school and there were usually plenty of parking spaces. He said Mr. Werner was assuming that a group would rent the structure and he was predicting behavior.
Mr. Werner stated boarding houses were popular.
Ms. Davis said no one forced Jon Davis to purchase the structure at 1339 Ohio street. She said it was not the neighborhoods job to meet Mr. Davis’ expectations to allow him to make money off the structure. Ms. Davis said she was concerned with the tandem parking and she did not understand it.
BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION
Lane asked Patterson if the concept of tandem parking was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, would the issue then go back to site plan review, and therefore be heard by the Historic Resource Commission.
Patterson said if the variance was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals for tandem parking, the site plan would be revised.
Carpenter asked if tandem parking would be allowed if the structure became a duplex.
Patterson said it would be possible and the City Engineer would review the driveway access requirement. He said 26 feet was the maximum width of a driveway.
Lane said that eight vehicles could possibly park in the space.
Carpenter said there could be 24 people within a duplex, and each one could have a vehicle because there was no enforcement on how many cars a person could own.
von Tersch said she was not in favor of reducing the number of parking spaces but would like to see the property renovated. She said she would hate to see tandem parking used frequently but the structure was unique because of the large size.
Lane said he agreed with von Tersch and thought this was a situation that tandem parking would work.
Bowman said parking was a problem all over the City.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Blaufuss, seconded by Carpenter, to deny the request to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces required for a congregate residence.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Blaufuss asked if the code did not speak to something in particular if the Board should assume it was allowed, not allowed or should the Board make no assumption.
Patterson stated the Planning Director interpreted stacked parking was not allowed per the Development Code, except for single family detached units or duplexes.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Blaufuss, seconded by Lowe, to allow stacked parking at 1339 Ohio Street, in accordance with the site plan submitted, as outlined on exhibit two, and the determination all five criteria had been met.
Motion carried, 6-1
ITEM NO. 6: MISCELLANEOUS
The Board welcomed Micah Kimball to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Lane stated a study session would be held on December 6, 2007 at 6:00pm and the public hearing would begin at 7:00pm.
ADJOURN – 8:45PM
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.