LAWRENCE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2015 – 6:30 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Members present: Fertig, Gardner, Gascon, Kimzey, Wilbur
Staff present: Cargill, Guntert
ITEM NO. 1 COMMUNICATIONS
Acknowledge communications to come before the Board.
Board member disclosure of any ex parte contacts and/or abstentions from the discussion and vote on any agenda item under consideration.
Wilbur said he lives on Durham Ct but has had no contact or discussion regarding Item 3.
There were no agenda items deferred.
ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES
Consider approval of the minutes from the October 1, 2015 meeting of the Board.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Gardner, seconded by Wilbur, to approve the minutes from the October 1, 2015 meeting of the Board.
Unanimously approved 5-0.
BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING:
ITEM NO. 3 FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A RESIDENTIAL GARAGE ADDITION; 500 DURHAM COURT [DRG]
B-15-00479: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2015 edition. The request is for a variance to reduce the 25 feet front yard building setback required in Section 20-601(a) of the City Code to a minimum of 12 feet at the southwest corner of a proposed garage addition for an existing residential dwelling. The property is located at 500 Durham Court. Submitted by Bill and Michelle R. Lown, the property owners of record. The legal description for each application is found in the respective project case file which is available in the Planning Office for review during regular office hours, 8-5 Monday - Friday.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Guntert presented the item.
Gascon asked if they would need a variance if the right-of-way was straight, not curved.
Guntert said they would not need a variance if the arc of the temporary cul-de-sac was not present.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Bill Lown, property owner, said the whole second lot is utilities and sewer drains. He said he needs more storage. He said the cul-de-sac just collects snow and sees no traffic. He feels the proposed project is cheaper than buying a new house for the storage space. He mentioned the roof will be the same as the house.
No public comment
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Gascon, seconded by Gardner, to close public comment for the item.
Unanimously approved 5-0.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Gardner said the request seems like a no-brainer.
Wilbur agreed and said his concerns were addressed.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Gardner, seconded by Gascon, to approve the variance as recommended in the staff report.
Unanimously approved 5-0.
ITEM NO. 4 LOT WIDTH VARIANCE FOR A SECOND RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ACCESS; 2229 RHODE ISLAND STREET [DRG]
B-15-00480: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2015 edition. The request is for a variance from the 200 feet minimum continuous street frontage requirement found in Section 20-915(f)(1) of the City Code which is required for a lot to qualify for a second driveway access. The applicant seeks approval of a second driveway access for their property which only has 100 feet of street frontage. The property is located at 2229 Rhode Island Street. Submitted by Valentin Vidrascu and Daniela Ticu, property owners of record. The legal description for each application is found in the respective project case file which is available in the Planning Office for review during regular office hours, 8-5 Monday - Friday.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Guntert presented the item.
Wilbur said this request seems common.
Guntert said they’ve seen three or four in the last year and a half.
Gardner asked if this type of request would be necessary with the new code language.
Guntert said no.
Gascon asked if the house had a garage that was converted.
Guntert said yes, the garage was converted to additional living space by the previous owner.
Gascon asked if the existing driveway provides access to a garage.
Guntert said it just provides a parking area.
Gascon asked if the current code speaks to the curb cut or the entire driveway.
Guntert said it refers to the curb cut.
Gascon asked if there is a separate process to obtain a new curb cut if the variance is denied and the current curb cut removed.
Guntert said yes.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Valentin Vidrascu, property owner, said they want to keep their vehicles safe during the winter and a garage on the north side is the only option, hence the need for a new driveway.
Gascon asked if the driveway was recently refinished.
Valentin said yes, the existing driveway was part gravel and needed some repair work.
No public comment
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Gardner, seconded by Wilbur, to close public comment for the item.
Unanimously approved 5-0.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Wilbur said the request seems pretty clear cut. He said they keep seeing the same types of request and feels the City should recognize that.
Fertig agreed.
Gascon said his only concern is that there’s a driveway already there that won’t be used, and finds it interesting that the driveway is fairly new and now they’re adding a second.
Kimzey said this request would not be necessary with the proposed new code language.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Wilbur, seconded by Gardner, to approve the variance as recommended in the staff report.
Unanimously approved 5-0.
ITEM NO. 5 EXTERIOR SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A RESIDENTIAL GARAGE ADDITION;
2637 RAWHIDE LANE [JSC]
B-15-00503: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2015 edition. The first request is for a variance to reduce the 25 feet exterior side yard building setback required in Section 20-601(a) of the City Code to a minimum of 10 feet from the cul-de-sac property line frontage. The second request seeks variance approval for a rear yard setback reduction from the code required 30 feet per Section 20-601(a), to a minimum of 15.2 feet measured from the closest corner of the residential dwelling to the rear property line. The property is located at 2637 Rawhide Lane. Submitted by Lance Adams, architect for Charles P. Garzillo, the property owner of record. The legal description for each application is found in the respective project case file which is available in the Planning Office for review during regular office hours, 8-5 Monday - Friday.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Guntert presented the item.
Fertig said it seems like the property has been in non-compliance since it was built.
Guntert said as far as he can tell, that is correct. He said staff was unable to find a prior variance for the property.
Gascon pointed to a plan page with setbacks. He asked if the rear yard is to the west.
Guntert said that is correct.
Gascon asked if the white area to the south is a utility easement.
Guntert said yes.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Lance Adams, architect, said the property owners would like a garage to store their vehicles while maintaining the home as a single family residence. He explained the issues with the property and the reason for their request.
Gardner asked if there was a previous garage that was closed in.
Adams said there’s currently a single car garage.
Gardner asked if this will then be a second garage.
Adams said yes.
Gascon asked if they considered a proposal that did not include angling the back of the garage addition.
Adams said they looked at several options but chose the current proposal because the addition stays inside the existing 15 ft setback established by the corner of the house.
Gascon asked if not angling the addition would be an advantage.
Adams said potentially, but the angle adds a little extra space.
Gascon asked about the option of squaring off the addition and making it parallel to the house.
Adams said that would be more than acceptable- they would gain more square footage at a lower cost.
Guntert said it would be a challenge to make that change tonight due to the way the request was advertised to the public.
Fertig agreed.
Gascon asked when they plan on breaking ground.
Adams said they don’t have the plans finished and it will depend on weather.
No public comment
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Gardner, seconded by Kimzey, to close public comment on the item.
Unanimously approved 5-0.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Gascon asked if they cannot modify the variance.
Fertig said the notice to the public was only for the proposed request.
Guntert said that is correct. He said they would need to republish the legal notice if the setback reduction request is greater than what was advertised.
Gardner asked if they can make a statement tonight that they would look favorably upon the new request.
Gascon didn’t think they could make that kind of guarantee until the request is before the Board.
Fertig said Board members not currently present might have a different in opinion.
Kimzey said he would be concerned about the new request’s proximity to the back property line.
Gascon said splitting the difference when squared off might provide better constructability. He asked staff if the property owner could extend the fence line to square it off if the current proposal is approved.
Guntert said a fence would not require a permit but there are code standards for height that are driven by setbacks.
Gascon said a fence at the property line could be 6 feet tall.
Guntert said it might have to step down to 4 ft in that location. He mentioned provisions in the code that would grant the building inspector authority to increase the fence height, which would typically require written consent from adjacent property owners.
Wilbur asked if there’s anything preventing the applicant from coming back with a new variance request.
Guntert said no.
Fertig asked if the request for the rear setback is to 15 ft or 15.2 ft.
Adams said they would prefer the 15 ft.
Gascon feels they’re creating the angle to meet an arbitrary setback, and suggested they request a variance that is more effective and more efficient for the house. He said the only question is whether the neighbor to the west will object to the new proposal. He explained that his question regarding a fence squared off in the same location was to point out that the massing would be the same as the addition.
Gardner said they could square it off and give up the space that’s in the triangle.
Gascon explained another option he would entertain, and said he hopes the architect is sensitive to the north wall and how it meets the street.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Fertig, seconded by Gardner, to approve the variances as recommended in the staff report, and noted that the approval is for a 15 ft rear setback.
Unanimously approved 5-0.
ITEM NO. 6 MISCELLANEOUS
a) There was no other business to come before the Board.
Guntert said there will be at least two items on the December agenda.
Fertig asked if there would be any sign code requests.
Guntert said staff indicated there would be a sign variance coming up but he’s unsure whether they will make the December meeting.
Gardner said he did not expect to make the December meeting.
ADJOURN 7:11 PM