City of Lawrence
Board of Zoning Appeals
|
January 6, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Carpenter, Kimball, Christie, von Tersch |
|
MEMBERS EXCUSED: STAFF PRESENT: |
Lowe, Mahoney Guntert, Miller, Parker |
|
APPLICANTS PRESENT: |
Sanders, Fulmer, Howitz |
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Meeting Minutes of January 6th, 2011 6:30 p.m.
____________________________________________________________________
Members present: Kimball, Christie, Carpenter, von Tersch
Members absent: Lowe, Mahoney
Staff present: Guntert, Miller, Parker
ITEM NO. 1 COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Guntert stated he received an email and photographs from Ms. Lisa Harris regarding item number 4.
Kimball abstained from the November 4, 2010 Board of Zoning Appeals minutes. Carpenter stated he was a member of the Barker Neighborhood Association list serve.
No agenda items deferred.
ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES
Motioned by Christie, seconded by von Tersch, to approve the November 4, 2010 Board of Zoning Appeals minutes.
Motion carried, 3-0-1 Kimball abstained
BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING:
ITEM NO. 3 2025 NEW HAMPSHIRE STREET [DRG]
B-12-12-10: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2009 edition. The request is for a variance to reduce the 5 feet building setback from an interior lot line for an accessory structure as required in Section 20-533(3) of the City Code to a minimum of 0 feet. The variance is requested to allow for the construction of a 25’x28’ detached garage along the north property line of an existing residence located at 2025 New Hampshire Street. Submitted by Gregory D. Sanders, the property owner of record. The legal description for the property in the appeal and the case file for the public hearing item are available in the Planning Office for review during regular office hours, 8-5 Monday - Friday.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Guntert presented the item.
Kimball asked Staff if the variance was for the side yard setback.
Mr. Guntert stated the variance was for the north side lot line.
Christie asked if 2021 New Hampshire street was green space.
Mr. Guntert said the owner of 2017 New Hampshire street also owned 2021 New Hampshire street and it could potentially be a buildable lot in the future.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Greg Sanders stated his boat and trailer was almost fifty feet long. He said a two feet setback would not keep his boat and trailer off the neighbor’s property.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Kay Pettit, 2017 New Hampshire street, stated when the City of Lawrence changed the Development Code she had the lot at 2017 New Hampshire street split which cost her approximately $3,000.00. She stated the rear of her lot consisted of thirty feet and Mr. Sanders’ lot consisted of fifty feet. Ms. Pettit said Mr. Sanders could redesign the garage and use the lot appropriately. She said there were numerous garages in the area that had been built in the 1930’s and 1940’s and were framed garages. Ms. Pettit stated she was happy Mr. Sanders was restoring his home and she did not want to be a bad neighbor but she preferred Mr. Sanders build a frame garage rather than a metal garage.
von Tersch asked Ms. Pettit if she was opposed to the zero or two feet setback.
Ms. Pettit stated she was opposed to both the zero and the two feet setback and would prefer a five feet setback. She said she would work with Mr. Sanders if he would build a frame garage rather than a metal garage.
Patricia Sinclair said there was a previous rezoning in part of the neighborhood and she had thought there was a ten feet setback. She said there was a problem in the neighborhood with the inappropriate use of single family homes. Ms. Sinclair stated it was important to maintain the residential structure. She said there were a lot of cars parked on the street in the area which caused a lot of congestion and danger. Ms. Sinclair asked if the garage would serve as a commercial business. She said the neighborhood had a problem with the sanity sewer and additional building might interfere with the maintenance.
Mr. Sanders said his boat was a ski boat and with the trailer and truck it was approximately fifty feet long. He said it made sense to get the boat and trailer off the street and into the garage.
Christie asked if the existing driveway was concrete.
Mr. Sanders said the existing driveway was concrete.
Kimball asked if the existing pad was currently in the setback.
Ms. Pettit said the current pad was within the setback.
Mr. Sanders said he planned to repave the driveway. He said he did not want to be a problem with the neighbors.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Motioned by Carpenter, seconded by Kimball, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously, 4-0
BOARD DISCUSSION
von Tersch said typically applications were reviewed by the Historic Resources Commission prior to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Guntert said the Board of Zoning Appeals application was received prior to the Historic Resources Commission application.
Kimball asked if the Variance could be deferred until the Historic Resources Commission reviewed the project. Kimball stated the neighborhood would be more acceptable if the garage was a framed structure.
von Tersch said the idea of a two feet setback appealed to her.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Kimball, seconded by Christie, to approve a two feet setback for 2025 New Hampshire street, subject to the approval of the project by the Lawrence Historic Resources Commission, based on the findings of fact in the staff report.
Motion approved unanimously, 4-0
ITEM NO. 4 DILLONS STORE; 1740 MASSACHUSETTS STREET [DRG]
B-12-13-10: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2009 edition. The first request is for a variance to reduce the 25 feet front and rear yard building setbacks on Massachusetts Street and New Hampshire Street respectively, as required in Section 20-601(b) of the City Code to a minimum of 0 feet. The second request is for a reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces for the new grocery store from the required 150 parking spaces per Section 20-902 of the City Code, to a minimum of 129 parking spaces. The final request is for a variance from the Code requirements of Sections 20-1003, 20-1004 and 20-1005 pertaining to the amount of interior parking lot landscaping and perimeter parking lot and buffer yard setbacks the applicant needs to provide in the parking area; the applicant is seeking alternative compliance for interior landscaping using the provisions in Section 20-1007 of the Code. These variances are being requested to help facilitate the redevelopment of an existing commercial center with a new urban grocery store located at 1740 Massachusetts Street. Submitted by Mike Boehm for the Dillons Companies, Inc., the property owner of record. The legal description for the property in the appeal and the case file for the public hearing item are available in the Planning Office for review during regular office hours, 8-5 Monday - Friday.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Guntert presented the item. Mr. Guntert read and email from Lisa Harris and displayed photos she had provided.
Kimball asked Mr. Guntert to explain the landscape variance.
Mr. Guntert said the variances dealt with buffer yard setbacks and interior parking lot landscape. He said the current site had less than 2,000 square feet of green space and the proposal would be less than 10,000 square feet of landscape area. He said the right of way area would also have landscape.
Kimball asked if Planning Staff would approve the final site plan.
Mr. Guntert said Planning Staff had the authority to approve the site plan. He said the City Commission would have to approve the pharmacy drive through and the outside café area.
Christie asked if there could be additional issues return to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Guntert stated the project could potentially come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals in the future.
Carpenter said the communications Staff received dealt with the drive through pharmacy and the New Hampshire street access.
John Miller, Staff Attorney, said if a site plan was approved administratively it then could be appealed to the City Commission.
Carpenter said the Board of Zoning Appeals had very specific issues for tonight’s meeting, which was the setback, parking spaces, and landscape variance.
Christie asked how many parking spaces were at the current site.
Mary Miller, City Staff, stated currently there were 178 parking spaces at Dillon’s grocery store and the proposal was for 51 less spaces.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Brian Fulmer, Dillon’s Company, stated the project at 1740 Massachusetts street was one the community could be proud of. Mr. Fulmer thanked City Staff for being professional and efficient. He stated there had been a number of Barker neighborhood meetings regarding the pedestrian sidewalk, the height of the building and the architectural effect of the structure. He said cut thru traffic from Massachusetts street to New Hampshire street would be controlled with a traffic calming speed hump. Mr. Fulmer said currently sixty five delivery trucks made deliveries on New Hampshire street per week and fifteen of those were semi style trucks. He said the new design would reduce the truck delivery to only fifteen trucks. Mr. Fulmer stated the semi truck delivery on Massachusetts street cut off would be at noon each day and the pharmacy drive thru would operate from nine to nine Monday thru Friday with an average of 320 trips to the drive thru per week. Mr. Fulmer said there would be no neon lighting or loud communication at the prescription drive thru area. He said Dillon’s Company had reached out to the neighborhood to set up further meetings to address neighborhood concerns. He said Dillon’s Company would like for the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve the project so the design could continue to be worked on.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bob Gent said he was concerned with the setback and asked if the setback would have to be the same for the front and the back of the property. He said he did not want the building placed so close to Massachusetts street and would like to see an improvement with the design and the brick facing Massachusetts street. He asked the Board the review the project very carefully.
Levi Dinkla, Family Video, stated he had removed part of his structures store front to comply with the Development Code. He stated Dillon’s grocery store was not an urban grocery store and if the project was approved tonight there would not be another public hearing and the applicant would make no changes to the project. He said Massachusetts street was a four lane street and asked if the speed limit on Massachusetts street would be changed to accommodate increased traffic and pedestrians. Mr. Dinkla stated fifty truck deliveries a week to the Dillon’s grocery store would be a hardship to On the Rocks Liquor Store. He said Starbucks would be on the west side of the structure and the customers would park in On the Rocks Liquor Store parking lot. He said currently On the Rocks Liquor Store received an over flow of vehicles due to Dillon’s grocery store having only 178 parking spaces. Mr. Dinkla stated 178 parking spaces was currently not enough and the project proposed to reduce the number of spaces. Mr. Dinkla said the Dillon’s grocery store would block On the Rocks Liquor Store structure and the truck delivery would be a disaster. He said people driving from the south to the north on Massachusetts street would only see the back of the structure and a loading dock. He said a zero foot setback would impede the vision of pedestrians and vehicles. Mr. Dinkla stated the store proposal was much larger than the current structure and more parking was needed. He said the proposed trees at the curb cut on the south side needed to be removed. Mr. Dinkla said the project as submitted would cause On the Rocks Liquor Store a severe hardship and his current tenant was very concerned with the safety of their customers and the parking situation and it could cause the tenant to relocate. He said if the project was approved as proposed On the Rocks Liquor Store would be stuck behind a loading dock.
Robert Farha said he agreed the area needed to have a new Dillon’s grocery store but the design constraints in the proposal should be alleviated. Mr. Farha stated he had not been contacted once regarding meetings held by Dillon’s Company. He said he was the owner of the six-plex adjacent to Dillon’s property. Mr. Farha stated Dillon’s Company had approached him previously to purchase his property for a demolition which had been approved by the Historic Resources Commission and the City Commission had previously approved zoning changes to the property. He said every major grocery store in the City faced a main arterial street. Mr. Farha stated the Dillon’s grocery store should face west to Massachusetts street due to increased traffic on New Hampshire street and added noise in the area. He said if Dillon’s store faced west there would be no need for a parking variance. Mr. Farha stated the proposed project would devalue properties in the area. He said his property touched two sides of the Dillon’s property and Dillon’s Company had not contacted him once regarding landscaping. Mr. Farha said there was nothing urban about the area and a new store was going to create a lot more traffic in the area. Mr. Farha asked the Board of Zoning Appeals to deny the project due to the hardship on surrounding property owners, the neighbors, increased traffic on New Hampshire street and the lack of parking spaces.
Jennie Storm, On the Rocks Liquor Store, stated her main concern was the setback and parking variances. She stated she had received a phone call the week her liquor store opened in 2009 and the caller asked her to remove a small banner that had been placed in the green space facing west. She said the caller indicated the banner blocked the view of customers turning in and out of Dillon’s grocery store. Ms. Storm said she had a very big concern with delivery trucks idling forty to fifty feet from the entry of On the Rocks Liquor Store. Ms. Storm showed photos of vehicles parked on New Hampshire street, idling, waiting for delivery. She said there was no delivery schedule for beer or other vendors and she would like to know where the trucks would be parking. She said Dillon’s Company proposal was adding a green space which would block her egress and a lot of her customers use the area. Ms. Storm stated she had worked for Dillon’s Company for eight and a half years and beer vendors and beverage trucks used tractor trailers for deliveries not box trucks. She said delivery trucks would have to back in off of Massachusetts street or use On the Rocks Liquor Store parking lot to make deliveries to Dillon’s grocery store. She said her employees, customers, and foot traffic would be in jeopardy and that would be a liability issue. Ms. Storm stated she was concerned with the maintenance of the building that Dillon’s Company would provide. She stated bread racks, pop racks and pallets were currently dumped at the Dillon’s site and they sat for weeks and weeks. Ms. Storm showed photos of trash and baking racks from the back of Dillon’s grocery store. She said the photos indicate the view that people would see when driving from the south to north on Massachusetts street. Ms. Storm stated the proposed plan had the structure facing the wrong way and the store should face Massachusetts street. She said Dillon’s Company had not worked with the neighborhood and she had not been notified by Dillon’s Company regarding the proposed project. Ms. Storm stated the neighborhood and adjacent property owners did not want the Dillon’s grocery store as proposed and she was very concerned with trash in the area from the outside eating area. Ms. Storm stated she was also concerned with snow removal in the winter months. She said the traffic was going to be increased in the area and asked the Board to deny the project as proposed.
Frederick McMillan, 1800 New Hampshire street, stated his home would face Dillon’s grocery store loading dock and trash bins. He stated he was concerned with increased traffic on New Hampshire street and the street was not designed for more traffic. Mr. McMillan asked where the city owned busses would stop to pick up passengers on New Hampshire street and Massachusetts street. Mr. McMillan stated Dillon’s Company had not contacted him regarding the proposed grocery store or meetings.
Matthew Gough, Barber Emerson, L.C., stated the proposal was not the first time Dillon’s grocery store had contemplated redesigning the building on Massachusetts street. He said the rezoning of Mr. Farha’s six-plex was on the verge of being finalized when Dillon’s Company decided not to purchase the property. He said Dillon’s Company was attempting to move forward with the project by obtaining the three variances and claiming they were appropriate under the five factors written out in the staff report. Mr. Gough stated the Development Code was in existence for good reason and now was not the right time to approve the proposed project. He said the size of the property was too small for the proposed structure. Mr. Gough stated if the six-plex next to Dillon’s grocery was purchased and demolished Dillon’s Company would not need variances. He said the surrounding property owners were very concerned with the proposal of reduced parking spaces and a newer better store would mean more people at the site. Mr. Gough stated Dillon’s Company did not meet the hardship provision and a solution would be to purchase the six-plex or build a smaller structure. He stated if the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variance requests, Dillon’s Company would find a way to make the new structure work.
Mary Wharff, Barker Neighborhood Association President, stated the opportunity for public comment regarding the proposal had been limited. She said she did not understand process and did not know why City Staff did not contact the neighborhoods regarding projects. She said the way the proposed structure was laid out was an issue and the drive through pharmacy could be moved to the Dillon’s store on 23rd street. Ms. Wharff stated she was concerned with left hand turns onto Massachusetts street and preferred the structure face Massachusetts street.
Patricia Sinclair stated she was a nineteen year shopper at Dillon’s grocery store and she had previously spoken against the acquisition of the six-plex by Dillon’s Company. Ms. Sinclair said the Dillon’s grocery store demolition would be a mess so setbacks were important. She stated she had a problem with the reduced parking spots. Ms. Sinclair stated the area of parking on the north of the structure was not zoned for parking and the Babcock residents needed to be protected. She stated she was not a fan of the landscape plan with plots of trees in the parking lot. Ms. Sinclair stated Dillon’s Company had not been a good neighbor.
Craig Patterson stated Dillon’s Company had not worked with the neighbors or the neighborhood. He said he was a long time customer of Dillon’s grocery store and did not want his comments dismissed. Mr. Patterson stated Dillon’s management and the upkeep of the property was very poor. He said the neighborhood had a very stable property ownership in the area. Mr. Patterson stated Dillon’s was making a concession for the increased size of the structure and a parking reduction by over fifty spaces, by offering bike and moped parking. He said the truck traffic would use the parking of On the Rocks Liquor Store which would cause an adverse effect to On the Rocks Liquor Store business and the semi style trucks would park on New Hampshire street facing the south. Mr. Patterson asked the Board to review the proposal very carefully and take into consideration the remarks of the neighbors and the adjacent property owners. He said the cause and effect of allowing zero lot lines on Massachusetts street and New Hampshire street would cause more traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Patterson asked the Board to defer or deny the Dillon’s Company proposal to force the company to meet with neighbors and come up with an alternative landscape proposal and a site plan. He asked the Board to review the project much more carefully prior to making a decision.
Brian Fulmer stated the compactor described would be located on New Hampshire street on the east side of the building in the dock area. He stated Dillon’s Company followed the notification procedure required by the City and held neighborhood meetings in November and December. He stated elevation and site plan drawings were provided for public review. Mr. Fulmer stated a year and a half ago the design faced Massachusetts street which required a basement in the structure. He said the comments showed the communities commitment to the neighborhood. Mr. Fulmer said the structure would be energy efficient and the design was pedestrian friendly.
Christie asked Mr. Fulmer how the neighbors had been notified.
Mr. Fulmer stated notification was mailed to property owners within 200 feet of the project.
Mr. McMillan stated he was not notified by Dillon’s Company of meetings held.
Mr. Farha stated he was not notified by Dillon’s Company of meetings held.
Kimball asked Mr. Fulmer if a smaller grocery store was considered. He said the current store was 32,000 square feet and there had been mention of a 37,000 square feet store.
Mr. Fulmer stated the proposed project was for a 44,000 square feet store and the smaller store proposed would have been facing Massachusetts street and included a basement.
Kimball asked Mr. Fulmer if there was a way to reduce the size of the store.
Mr. Fulmer stated a neighborhood group requested seven foot wide isles in the grocery store which forced the reduction of product selection.
Kimball asked Mr. Fulmer if there was a primary pedestrian entrance on the west side of the structure.
Mr. Fulmer stated there was an access point into the café.
Lynne Howitz, Dillon’s Company, stated there was a café seating entrance to allow customers to exit and enter the building on the west.
Christie asked Ms. Howitz what the square footage of the current grocery store was.
Ms. Howitz stated the current grocery store was 30,000 square feet.
Christie stated the grocery store would increase by 33% and the parking lot area would be reduced by 33%.
Mr. Fulmer stated the current parking configuration was inefficient.
Mr. Dinkla stated the setback would be a hardship to On the Rocks Liquor Store.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Motioned by Kimball, seconded by von Tersch, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously, 4-0
BOARD DISCUSSION
Kimball said he did not want to see the grocery store built smaller than what was needed. He said a twenty five feet setback on the rear was already established and would not affect the neighbors. Kimball said the side yard setback was zero lot line by code and was not a variance that was required. He said there was an issue with trucks delivering from Massachusetts street but that was not an issue for the Board of Zoning Appeals. He asked Staff to review the truck issue. Kimball stated he wanted to see more of a pedestrian access and the parking reduction was warranted due to the number of pedestrians. He said if the size of the grocery store was reduced to meet the parking requirement the traffic would not be reduced.
von Tersch said the new and improved store would increase the volume of customers. She said she had a concern with the parking reduction.
Kimball said the guidelines for parking regulations have shifted to reduce the number of parking spots for projects like this one.
von Tersch stated a bigger store would increase the volume of customers and vehicles.
Carpenter said the guidelines for parking spots had not changed at the current time. He stated it would be helpful to know the situation with the two other Dillon’s stores in the City.
von Tersch stated the additional setback would affect the site line of neighboring businesses.
Carpenter stated the change in the Development Code had taken this project away from the Planning Commission and had allowed decisions to be made by Staff. He said only neighborhood associations and property owners within 200 feet were required to be notified.
Kimball asked Staff if the adjoining property had requested a variance in 2005.
Mr. Guntert said the adjoining property owner had requested a landscape variance and a setback for parking on the public right away and a rear yard building setback.
Christie asked Staff how the three variances would impact the loading dock between Dillon’s grocery store and On the Rocks Liquor Store.
Mr. Guntert stated if Dillon’s grocery store met a twenty five feet setback it would push the loading dock further east.
Christie stated the variance was more of a site design decision rather than the need of a variance.
Carpenter said a zero feet setback on Massachusetts street with a loading dock would impact the site lines of the semi trucks. He stated there would be increased traffic on New Hampshire street.
Christie asked if the proposed project would require a new street installed on New Hampshire street.
Kimball said a traffic study should be provided by the applicant.
Christie said simple decisions now could cause problems in the future.
Carpenter said he would like to see more information regarding the parking guidelines.
Kimball asked the applicant if a traffic study had been completed.
Mr. Fulmer stated a traffic study had been completed.
Ms. Martin stated a seven step traffic study had been completed.
Motioned by Kimball to approve the variance request to reduce the 25 feet front and rear yard building setbacks on Massachusetts Street and New Hampshire Street.
Carpenter stated there was no action to Kimball’s motion.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Kimball, seconded by Christie, to approve the variance for the amount of interior parking lot landscaping and perimeter parking lot and buffer yard setbacks.
Motion carried unanimously, 4-0
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by von Tersch, seconded by Carpenter, to defer the following variances to the February 3rd, 2011 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, the reduction of the 25 feet front and rear yard building setbacks on Massachusetts Street and New Hampshire Street, and for a reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces from the required 150 parking spaces to 129 parking spaces, until alternative parking guidelines and parking comparisons of Dillon’s two other grocery stores is received, and a safety traffic assessment is complete.
Motion carried unanimously, 4-0
ITEM NO. 5 MISCELLANEOUS
a) No other business before the Board.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Christie, seconded by Kimball to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
Motion carried unanimously, 4-0
ADJOURN – 9:30p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.