TAKE A ROLL CALL TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS A QUORUM OF MEMBERS PRESENT ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF A CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR

LAWRENCE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA

FEBRUARY 5, 2015 – 6:30 P.M., CITY COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, FIRST FLOOR OF CITY HALL AT SIXTH AND MASSACHUSETTS STREET, LAWRENCE, KANSAS CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER

TAKE A ROLL CALL TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS A QUORUM OF MEMBERS PRESENT ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF A CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2015-2016

Conduct elections for a Chair and Vice-Chair to serve during the 2015-2016 term. ITEM NO. 2 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.

Announce any agenda items that will be deferred. ITEM NO. 3 MINUTES

Consider approval of the minutes from the November 6, 2014 meeting of the Board. BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING:

ITEM NO. 4 BUILDING SETBACKS, PARKING SPACES, AND PARKING AREA DESIGN VARIANCES FOR A DUPLEX RENOVATION, 707 & 709 WEST 12TH STREET [DRG]

B-15-00002: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2013 edition. The first request is for a variance from the minimum 25 feet front yard and 5 feet side yard building setbacks required in Section 20-601(a) of the City Code. The variance request seeks approval for the 4 feet front yard and 1 foot side yard building setbacks that currently exist. The second variance is for a reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces from the code required 8 spaces per Section 20-902 of the City Code, to a minimum of 5 parking stalls. The last request is for a variance to reduce the 24 feet aisle width standard for 90 degree parking stalls found in Section 20-913(f)(1) of the City Code, to a minimum of 19 feet. These variance requests are submitted to allow the contract purchaser to renovate the existing structure into a duplex residential dwelling with each dwelling unit having 4-bedrooms. The property is located at 707 & 709 W. 12th _{Street. Submitted by Michael R. Myers, Hernly Associates, Inc., for Ernest} H. Eck, et al., contract purchaser from Lilian Six Trust, 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.

ITEM NO. 5 FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE FOR THE CITY OF LAWRENCE WAKARUSA CONVEYANCE SYSTEM PUMP STATION NO. 10, 3055 LOUISIANA STREET [AAM]

B-15-00011: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2013 edition. The request is from the provisions in Article 12, Section 20-1204(e)(1)(i), “Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction, General Development Standards,” of the City Code as it pertains to development in the Regulatory Floodplain Overlay District. The variance request is related to the proposed new City of Lawrence Wakarusa Conveyance System Pump Station No. 10 which is to be developed on the property addressed as 3055 Louisiana Street. Submitted by Alex Darby, P. E. with Professional Engineering Consultants, P. A. for the City of Lawrence, 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.

ITEM NO. 6 REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A REPLACEMENT SUNROOM ADDITION, 2503 PRINCETON BLVD [DRG]

B-15-00012: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2013 edition. The request is for a variance from the minimum 30 feet rear yard building setback required in Section 20-601(a) of the City Code. The variance request seeks approval for a 5.66 feet rear yard setback, which is the current setback at the closest point of an existing sunroom from the rear property line. The request was submitted to allow the property owner the ability to replace the existing sunroom structure with another one that is the same size. The property is located at 2503 Princeton Boulevard. Submitted by Pat Fugitt with Alenco for Janice M. and Manny Moreno, Jr., 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.

ITEM NO. 7 MISCELLANEOUS

______________________________________________________________________ Members present: Fertig, Gardner, Gascon, Holley, Mahoney, Wilbur

Staff present: Cargill, Guntert, Larkin ITEM NO. 1 COMMUNICATIONS

Acknowledge communications to come before the Board:

Guntert said there were a number of communications in the agenda packet and two additional communications were received today- one from Kelie McIver and one from Linda Crist, both regarding Item 4. He noted that paper copies were provided.

Board member disclosure of any ex parte contacts and/or abstentions from the discussion and vote on any agenda item under consideration:

Fertig said all of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) members received an email from Dan Coleman and Tom Harper regarding Item 4.

Gascon said he did not receive an email from Tom Harper. Holley distributed copies of the communications.

Mahoney said he will recuse himself from Item 4 for personal reasons.

Holley said one of his coworkers lives in the neighborhood for Item 4 and just asked about the agenda but they did not discuss the item.

Larkin said that doesn’t present a conflict. There were no agenda items deferred. ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES

Consider approval of the minutes from the September 4, 2014 meeting of the Board. ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Gascon, seconded by Holley, to approve the minutes from the September 4, 2014 meeting of the Board.

Motion carried 4-0-2. BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING:

ITEM NO. 3 PARKING AREA SURFACE AND DESIGN VARIANCES FOR THE NEW CITY OF LAWRENCE SOLID WASTE FACILITY, 2201 KRESGE ROAD [DRG]

B-14-00443: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2013 edition. The requests are for variances related to the parking and loading area design standards found in Sections 913(e)(1), 913(e)(4), and 20-913(i) of the City Code. The applicant is requesting approval to keep existing drives and parking areas with the same surface type and thickness; using gravel surfacing for the sanitation truck parking area; no concrete curbs along existing drives and some new parking areas; and, maintaining the existing driveway approach on the property. These variances are requested to facilitate the relocation of the City of Lawrence Solid Waste Facility to the property located at 2201 Kresge Road. Submitted by Darron Ammann, Bartlett & West, Inc., for the City of Lawrence, the property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION Guntert presented the item.

Mahoney said some of the existing features are not up to code, and asked if the variance is necessary or if there is a grandfather clause.

Guntert said the project is considered a major site plan and they should be brought up to current code standards.

Holley asked if the site plan must also be approved as a condition of approval for the variance. Guntert said it would be appropriate if that was added, but one wouldn’t happen without the other in this case.

No public comment ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Gascon, seconded by Fertig, to close the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. Unanimously approved 6-0.

BOARD DISCUSSION

Mahoney said he sees a lot of improvements to the property and benefit to the community, and is in favor of the variance. He said he isn’t sure about the site plan stipulation but it might be a good idea to add it, although he’s not terribly concerned about it.

Fertig said it sounds like the site plan is contingent upon the variance, so it doesn’t seem necessary.

Larkin said they could add a condition if they choose.

Wilbur asked if they anticipate a lot of visitors to the site. He mentioned it might be a minor safety risk to not have curbing in some of the areas they were requesting the variance.

Guntert said the applicant might be better able to answer that question, but he doesn’t suspect it will be a high traffic type use. The household hazardous waste collection site will have visitors coming to drop off materials from time to time.

Gardner said he initially had the same concern, but it looks like all the traffic comes in from Kresge Road using the east driveway entrance.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Fertig, seconded by Wilbur, to approve the variances based on the findings in the staff report.

Unanimously approved 6-0.

ITEM NO. 4 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT MAXIMUM SIZE VARIANCE, 907 WEST 22ND TERRACE [DRG]

B-14-00445: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2013 edition. The request is for a variance from the maximum size standard for an accessory dwelling unit in a residential dwelling structure as defined in Section 20-534(2)(ix) of the City Code. The code standard limits the size of an accessory dwelling unit to no more that 33 percent of the living area of the primary dwelling or 960 square feet, whichever is less. The proposed size of the accessory dwelling unit is 900 square feet. The living area in the dwelling is 1,056 square feet which limits the size of the accessory dwelling unit

to 348 square feet. The property is located at 907 West 22nd _{Terrace. Submitted by Linda Rae} Burkett Crist and James Burkett, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Guntert presented the item, which involved a request to allow a larger size accessory dwelling unit than permitted by City Code.

Gardner asked if three people can live upstairs in the three bedrooms, while another could live in the basement, or vice versa.

Guntert said it would be one person residing in one of the units and up to a maximum of three unrelated individuals in the other dwelling unit. How the property owner chose to do it was up to them.

Gardner asked if the property owner came back with a proposal to reduce the living space in the basement.

Guntert said there was a communication from Linda Crist, a co-owner of the property, that was submitted today asking if they could use two of the basement bedrooms for storage as a way to reduce the size of the accessory dwelling unit and if that would be approved. That was the only offer they’ve made for reducing the size of the accessory dwelling unit. Staff had not had time to consider that option.

Gardner asked if this could be used as an amendment to the process for an Accessory Dwelling Unit.

Guntert said he’s not sure which bedrooms Ms. Crist proposed to block off so he could not determine if the reduced size of the accessory dwelling unit would become code compliant.

Gardner suggested it might have been helpful for the applicant to have been present to be able to respond to questions in order to see if there was opportunity to find a compromise solution.

Guntert said the Board has the authority to grant a variance that is a compromise between the code required standard and what the applicant has requested if the Board finds the variance request meets the five conditions for approval.

Gardner asked if there would be any need for an additional dwelling unit if they had pulled a building permit for the basement.

Guntert said the basement floor plan is identical to the main floor of the home - it has a kitchen, bathroom, 3 separate bedrooms and a separate entrance off the back of the home. He said there appears to still be an ability to access the basement and the upstairs using an interior stairway. In other words, the two floor levels and dwelling units are not separate.

Gardner commented that it appears to be one residence, not two. He wondered why there is a need for a variance if it is all one house.

Guntert said the accessory dwelling unit code standards allow someone to create an accessory dwelling unit that is ancillary to the primary dwelling in select zoning districts and in compliance with specific code standards. These code provisions went into effect in 2006 when the Development Code was adopted by the City.

Gardner said he thought an accessory dwelling unit needed to be in a separate building on the property.

Guntert said that’s how many of them are set up, but that’s not the way this house is currently designed and constructed.

Holley mentioned Criteria 5 in the Staff Report. He said his interpretation of the intent and spirit of the code is to allow for something such as a “grandmother’s cottage” or a single family home with space above the den to rent to a single person, not to artificially add more unrelated people to a single residence.

Guntert said that has been the primary reason for applications submitted to the city.

Gascon asked if the variance was brought on a voluntarily basis or based on a complaint by others. Guntert said it was brought to the City following the denial of the accessory dwelling unit application submitted by the property owner.

Gascon asked if that registration was brought to the city based on complaints about the number of occupants in the house.

Guntert said the Accessory Dwelling Unit Application was filed after a complaint was registered with the city about the number of unrelated people living at this address.

Gascon suggested the applicant could reconfigure the interior space so the accessory dwelling unit did not exceed the square footage allotment and they would not lose any bedrooms. They could build a wall between the three bedrooms downstairs and have a staircase connecting the upper and lower level so the primary dwelling unit would be five bedrooms (two downstairs); the accessory dwelling unit downstairs would be its own separate unit with one bedroom, bathroom and a kitchen.

Guntert said that could be allowed, but again, the code specifies a maximum occupancy limit for the number of unrelated individuals that can reside in a dwelling unit.

Gascon concluded then that the approval of the variance would allow no more than four unrelated individuals living in the structure, as opposed to three, which is currently allowed.

Guntert said that is correct. Gascon asked how it is enforced.

Guntert said enforcement of the occupancy limit would be handled on a complaint basis. The City would investigate the complaint and issue a notice of violation directing the property owner to correct the code violation.

Gascon asked how that is accomplished.

Larkin said sometimes a criminal complaint is filed because it is a violation of the law, but people tend to move out on their own before the court proceedings. Other times staff might seek an injunction, and if they don’t comply they’re held in contempt of court. He said the court process often takes longer than the lease period in these cases.

Gascon asked if a warrant is required to verify the number of occupants.

Larkin said there must be probable cause before a warrant can be issued, and sometimes that is difficult to prove.

Gascon concluded that there is nothing really stopping six people from living in the house if the variance is approved, given the explanation of the complaint and citation processes.

Gardner said without the variance, the mother, son and one other individual can live there; with the variance, the mother, son and two other unrelated people can live there.

Gascon thought the mother is out of the picture as far as her ever moving into the house. He said just the son and two roommates are currently living there and they’d like a fourth roommate for the accessory dwelling unit.

Guntert said there’s been an indication in correspondence that the mother hopes to move into the accessory dwelling unit.

Wilbur clarified that three unrelated occupants is compliant with city code, four would be in compliance with a variance, but five would not be compliant at all.

Guntert said with the City’s approval of an accessory dwelling unit, it was possible to have four unrelated occupants. The variance was only related to the maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit and had nothing to do with an increase of occupancy.

Fertig suggested they ask public members to focus comments on the variance request and not the occupancy limits, and to limit the length of time for comments.

Holley said that was a good suggestion, particularly because they cannot verify the occupancy of the property, and brief comments- around three minutes- would be ideal.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Craig Jacob, 843 W 22nd _{St, said he moved into the neighborhood in 1980 and worked very} hard with the neighborhood association to make it a good place to live. One thing they worked through is the occupancy guidelines. He said one of the reasons ordinances exist is to control how a neighborhood and the City grows and maintains its healthy existence. He added that variances are granted when a situation doesn’t quite meet the intent- or in this case the space requirements- of an ordinance. If the Board grants this variance, it would be very hard not to grant the same thing for the next request. He said right now there is a house for sale in the neighborhood that lists five bedrooms and two kitchens. He added that within the last two or three months, there are four houses within eyesight of his property that are now or will become rentals, and three of those have basements. He said his house has a basement with a bedroom and bath, and could easily have a kitchen and two other bedrooms. He said the house they own next door could be converted into two units and has enough off-street parking for five or six vehicles. His point is that once you let one house vary from the ordinance, it’s hard to disallow others to do the same. He said rules without consequences are merely suggestions - this ordinance is not a suggestion – it is a rule that would keep Centennial Neighborhood a single family neighborhood. He asked the Board to deny the variance.

Mr. Frank Brown, 908 W 22nd _{Terrace, said he has lived across the street from the subject property} for a year. He said he discovered the new owners were planning to move six or eight college kids into the house when they went over to introduce themselves as they were in the process of moving into the house. The new owners were totally unaware of the city code restrictions that limit the number of unrelated people who can live in a dwelling unit. He said the application for variance was requested for the sole purpose of increasing occupancy, and it was made clear that the applicant will do what is necessary to have six occupants.

He and his wife and several other neighbors would like to request the variance be denied. He feels it’s a slippery slope and goes against the intent of an accessory dwelling unit.

Mr. Gordon Brown, 19th _{& Ohio St, said he echoes the neighbors’ sentiments and said he agrees} with staff’s recommendation for denial of the variance. He thought the owner was abusing the essence of the ordinance.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Fertig seconded by Gardner, to close the public hearing portion of the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-1.

BOARD DISCUSSION

Fertig said they’ve received 11 items of written correspondence from neighbors who are opposed so it seems the neighborhood is strongly against the variance.

Holley said he agreed. In order to approve the variance the Board has to find that it meets the five conditions. He read the first condition.

Fertig said it does not meet that condition since the request arises from the owner’s desire to add more occupants than what is currently allowed. She felt this is not like other cases they’ve seen, like an applicant constructing a roof on a pre-existing deck, that based on zoning changes over the years now encroaches on a property line. She said this is completely different.

Holley said he agreed. He said they frequently deal with triangular sites that are not very well described, but this is a regular house that doesn’t seem to have anything unique to the site or the house itself.

Gascon said he disagreed. He felt it is important to recognize that the variance is for an increase of square footage to 1000 feet for the accessory dwelling unit, which is limited by the existing footprint of the house. It could be argued that a hardship arises from creating dead space in an otherwise useful finished basement.

Holley said he also agreed and hoped that he was not misunderstood. He said purely based on square footage, whether you count one floor or two because it’s a connected house, the applicant was asking for a variance that is much more than the code allowed 33%. There are ways to carve out the space to meet the requirements, but they’re not asking or proposing to do that.

Gascon feels the hardship would be the requirement to build a wall. Holley said they are still addressing the first condition.

Wilbur said he agreed with Holley and Fertig regarding Condition 1. Holley asked for feedback regarding Condition 2.

Gascon said he doesn’t see how the square footage materially impacts the residents because they cannot control occupancy.

Holley said he agreed that it does satisfy Condition 2. He moved on to Condition 3, which speaks to the hardship.

Gascon said the hardship would be the requirement to re-construct a unit that could be occupied as is.

Gardner asked if the variance would be necessary if all of the occupants were children in one family.

Gascon and Holley said no.

Holley said without the applicant present it’s hard to assess the severity of the hardship, and he’s not convinced - based on the application submitted - that it would be a significant hardship.

Gascon said he has a hard time believing that it’s not a hardship considering the cost of an accessory dwelling unit is $0.

Fertig said she agreed. She said the latest communication suggested using two of the downstairs bedrooms as storage, so at least now they’re thinking about shrinking it down. She doesn’t feel the applicant has met the burden of proof that this would be an unnecessary hardship, and in her opinion they don’t meet Condition 3.

Holley read the 4th _{condition, adding that the applicant feels the variance would have a positive} effect and can see no issues that would adversely affect the aforementioned areas.

Fertig said it would be a stretch to suggest that granting the variance would affect the public morals, but she could see the addition of occupants having an adverse effect on order and convenience in the neighborhood, in terms of street parking and possible noise.

Gascon said she’s implying that there is added occupancy beyond one. Fertig said not necessarily.

Fertig and Gascon discussed the possibilities for different scenarios.

Fertig said there is some evidence that there would be an adverse effect, based on comments from the neighbors, and the only counter to their concerns is the statement in the application that it would have a positive effect.

Gascon said he doesn’t see the difference between an accessory dwelling unit that is 300 square feet versus one that is 900 square feet.

Holley said he feels there’s not enough information to determine how this contributes to the neighborhood.

Holley recited Criteria 5. He said if they increased the size of the main building it would be within the spirit of the code to ask for an accessory dwelling unit of this size.

Gascon said if they added two stories above they could actually do this.

Holley suggested the 33% is in place with good intentions, and for the spirit of having a primary and secondary unit, he feels the request is against the intention based on the percentage, not the prospect of additional occupants. He said he lives in a very small house behind a larger main house, and if they were the same size that might be weird, but he’s open to discussion on that opinion. He felt the Board has not reached a consensus that the applicant meets all of the criteria for variance approval.

Gascon said that’s fair to say, but it’s important to recognize the real purpose of an accessory dwelling unit in an urban environment. He mentioned that the Horizon 2020 Steering Committee is struggling with the idea of increased population growth while maintaining agricultural land by not expanding outward, the solution to which, he feels, is increased density within the existing urban area. He feels the true spirit of an accessory dwelling unit is to add density and vibrancy to neighborhoods.

Fertig said she doesn’t disagree but can’t get past the 33% maximum size standard. She said it seems the whole point of having a 33% cap is to prevent de facto duplexes, and based on that she feels the variance doesn’t meet the intent of the Development Code.

Wilbur said he agreed.

Gascon said after looking at some studies, he feels the 33% is a bit tight for making an accessory dwelling unit work in the City.

Fertig suggested members should state their position on this condition.

Holley said said the code isn’t perfect and hopes the City increases density in the future, but he does not find the request meets the spirit of Criteria 5.

Fertig, Gardner, and Wilbur agreed. ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Fertig, seconded by Gascon, to deny the variance for failure to meet all required criteria as outlined in the Staff Report.

Motion carried 5-0-1. ITEM NO. 5 MISCELLANEOUS

a) Consider any other business to come before the Board.

Guntert asked if it would be appropriate to revise the 2015 meeting schedule from July 2nd _{to July 9}th_{. They agreed on July 9}th_.

6 East 6th _{St. www.lawrenceks.org/pds/ Phone 785-832-3150}

P.O. Box 708 Tdd 785-832-3205

Lawrence, KS 66044 Fax 785-832-3160

January 16, 2015 Board of Zoning Appeals

Lawrence Douglas County Planning Department 6 E 6th _Street

P.O. Box 708

Lawrence, KS 66044

RE: B-15-00002 707-709 W 12th _Street Dear Board of Zoning Appeals Members:

The Lawrence Historic Resources Commission (HRC) at their meeting on January 15, 2015, voted 4-0-1 to send a communication to the Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals to express their concern about the variances requested for 707-709 W 12th _{Street. 707-709 W 12}th _{Street, the Bell Wilmont House, is listed as} a contributing structure to the Hancock Historic District, National Register of Historic Places and is located in the environs (within 250 feet) of the Snow House (706 W 12th _{Street), listed in the Lawrence Register of} Historic Places.

Chapter 22-205(B)(12) of the City Code identifies in the Powers and Duties of the Historic Resources Commission that the Commission will review and comment upon applications for zoning variances that effect property listed in the Lawrence Register or within the environs of the listed property.

The HRC discussed that the requested variances for the property may not meet the standards and guidelines identified in Chapter 22. The Commission requested that staff place this item on the February 19, 2015 HRC agenda for review.

The Historic Resources Commission requests that the Board of Zoning Appeals defer action on the variance requests until such time the Commission can hear and determine if the variances will have an adverse effect on the listed property or the environs of the listed property.

Respectfully submitted, Lynne Braddock Zollner, AICP Historic Resources Administrator On behalf of

The Lawrence Historic Resources Commission

Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:27:39 PM January 20, 2015

Lynne Braddock Zollner

AICP Historic Resources Administrator City of Lawrence Planning Department P.O. Box 708, Lawrence, KS 66044 RE: 707-709 West 12th Street Dear Lynne,

I understand that the 707-709 West 12th Street Board of Zoning Appeals application was briefly discussed at the January 15th Historic Resources Commission Meeting and that it was the general preference for the HRC to review the proposed parking area and zoning variances prior to the BZA hearing.

It is the intent of the owner of the property and myself to submit a comprehensive rehabilitation plan to be reviewed by the HRC. In order that the HRC can review the comprehensive project in one application/hearing and in order that the hearing be prior to the hearing by the BZA we hereby request a deferral of the BZA hearing until the March 5th meeting.

We will provide you with a full set of plans and a design review application on or prior to February 9th for the February 19th HRC hearing date as we have discussed.

Please let me know if there are any issues with this request. Thank you,

Mike Myers, AIA Project Architect Hernly Associates, Inc.

p.785-749-5806 x305 c.785-218-2636 mike@hernly.com www.hernly.com

University of Kansas 1101 1137 1200 704 1208 1145 0 JA 706 0 OR 0 OR 1200 1138 707 1140 1201 711 1200 1134 1136 1209 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 M is si ss ip pi S t W 12th St In di an a St M is si ss ip pi S t Ore ad A ve

RM32

PCD

MU-PD

U-KU

U-KU

B-15-00002: Building Setbacks, Number of Off-Street Parking

Stalls & Parking Lot Design Standard Variances for Renovation

of a Duplex Dwelling Structure at 707-709 West 12th Street

January 14, 2015

Subject Property

University of Kansas 1101 1137 1200 704 1208 1145 0 JA 706 0 OR 0 OR 1200 1138 707 1140 1201 711 1200 1134 1136 1209 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 M is si ss ip pi S t W 12th St In di an a St M is si ss ip pi S t Ore ad A ve

RM32

PCD

MU-PD

U-KU

U-KU

B-15-00002: Building Setbacks, Number of Off-Street Parking

Stalls & Parking Lot Design Standard Variances for Renovation

of a Duplex Dwelling Structure at 707-709 West 12th Street

January 14, 2015

Subject Property

ITEM NO. 5 FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE FOR THE CITY OF LAWRENCE WAKARUSA CONVEYANCE SYSTEM PUMP STATION NO. 10, 3055 LOUISIANA STREET [AAM]

B-15-00011: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2013 edition. The request is from the provisions in Article 12, Section 20-1204(e)(1)(i), “Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction, General Development Standards,” of the City Code as it pertains to development in the Regulatory Floodplain Overlay District. The variance request is related to the proposed new City of Lawrence Wakarusa Conveyance System Pump Station No. 10 which is to be developed on the property addressed as 3055 Louisiana Street. Submitted by Alex Darby, P. E. with Professional Engineering Consultants, P. A. for the City of Lawrence, property owner of record.

A. REASON FOR REQUEST & PROJECT SUMMARY

(Applicant responses are in italics)

“The owner, the City of Lawrence, is requesting a variance for fill within the building setback at the Pump Station No. 10 site. The entire parcel was platted with the floodplain overlay designation for simplicity and the variance should not create a negative impact since the fill within the setback is not within the regulatory floodplain. The fill within the setback area along the north property line is to accommodate the bermed landscaping used to provide a visually appealing view from the north.”

The subject property, 3055 Louisiana Street, is located at the northwest corner of Louisiana and 31st _{Streets. The applicant is planning to develop the property} for use as a wastewater pump station, a minor utility.

The Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) issues floodplain maps (Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FIRMS) for our jurisdiction. Those maps delineate the regulatory or 100-year floodplain on the property. Current maps in effect, dated August 5, 2010, only show portions of the property lie in the regulatory floodplain. There is a local code provision for zoning more land than is delineated on the FEMA FIRMs to be part of the regulatory floodplain by adding it to the Floodplain Overlay District. While the placement of fill that is the subject of this variance is not located in the regulatory floodplain according to the FEMA FIRM’s, it is located in the local Floodplain Overlay District and is therefore subject to the floodplain regulations.

The Land Development Code requires a bufferyard between this property and the property to the north. That bufferyard contains a berm and landscaping in order to provide an adequate buffer between the pump station and residential zoning to the north. In order to meet that requirement, it is necessary to place fill in the setback are of the north property line.

Code permits the placement of fill, subject to a fill permit from the Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources (DWR) and code

standards. The applicant has already obtained a fill permit from DWR. Under the current code standards, the applicant can place fill outside of the setback. This berm does not meet the code requirements for fill, and therefore the applicant is requesting the following variance:

1. Land Development Code Section 20-1204(e)(1)(i), “Fill shall not be placed in the Setback areas except at approved Access Points".

Staff has identified that this code provision was originally intended to apply to infill development where a single undeveloped lot was surrounded by developed lots. In this case, the lot is being newly developed but is surrounded by existing development to the north. However, the applicant is not proposing to fill all the way to the lot line, and therefore proper drainage will be maintained between the proposed berm and property to the north. There is not harm to a neighboring property owner from encroachment or the changing of a drainage pattern. Staff has identified that this should be changed in the code and has put this on the future work program. It is expected that staff will work on revised code language that will include standards to correct the need for variances when new floodplain maps are adopted in September 2015.

B. ZONING AND LAND USE

Current Zoning and Land Use OS-FP (Open Space) District with Floodplain Management Regulations Overlay District; undeveloped (future site of Pump Station No. 10).

Surrounding Zoning and Land To the west: OS-FP (Open Space) District with Floodplain Management Regulations Overlay District; existing park.

To the east: OS (Open Space) District; existing park. To the south: A (Agricultural) District and B-2

(Business) District; existing businesses.

To the north: RS7 (Single Family Residential) District; existing residence and religious institution.

C. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 20-1309(a) Authority and Applicability.

The zoning variance procedures of this section authorize the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve, in specific cases, variances from specific zoning standards of this development code that will not be contrary to public interest and where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of zoning standards would result in unnecessary hardship.

Section 20-1204: (Code sections applicable to the variances being requested are highlighted in yellow)

(e) General Development Standards

The following standards apply to any and all Development that is proposed within the FloodplainOverlay District.

(1) All Development shall comply with the following standards:

(i) Fill shall not be placed in the Setback areas except at approved Access points;

(ii) Structures must be designed and constructed with adequate

of the Structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy;

(iii) Structures must be designed and constructed with materials

resistant to Flood damage using methods and practices that minimize Flood damages;

(iv) All electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air-conditioning equipment, and other service facilities must be designed and/or located to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the mechanical components during conditions of Flooding;

(v) New or replacement water supply systems and/or sanitary sewage systems must be designed to eliminate infiltration of

Flood waters into the systems and discharges from the

systems into Flood waters, and on-site waste disposal systems must be located so as to avoid impairment or contamination;

(vi) All public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems must be located and constructed to eliminate Flood damage;

(vii) Fully enclosed areas below the Lowest Floor that are used

solely for Parking of vehicles, Building Access, or storage in an area other than a Basement and that are subject to

Flooding must be designed to automatically equalize

hydrostatic Flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of Flood waters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect to meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:

a. A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to Flooding shall be provided; and,

b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above Grade. Openings may be equipped with Screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters.

(viii) Storage of Material and Equipment;

a. The storage or processing of materials within the

Floodplain Overlay District area that are in time of

Flooding buoyant, flammable, explosive, or potentially

injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited; and

b. Storage of other material or equipment may be allowed if not subject to major damage by Floods, if firmly anchored to prevent flotation, or if readily removable from the area within the time available after a Flood

warning.

Section 20-303 FP, Floodplain Management Regulations Overlay District

The FP, Floodplain Management Regulations are implemented as an Overlay District. The established regulatory provisions affecting land in the FP District are set out in Article 12, Floodplain Management Regulations.

D. SPECIFIC ANALYSIS

Section 20-1309(g)(2) lists the criteria required to be met for the granting of a variance from the Flood Protection Regulations:

(i). The Board of Zoning Appeals may approve a variance from the flood protection regulations of Article 12 only after finding that the requested variance meets all of the following criteria:

(i)a. A determination by the Board of Zoning Appeals that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard to afford relief;

“The variance covers the only the minimum amount of fill required to ensure screening between the property to the north and the pump station. Also, none of the fill within the setback is located within the regulatory floodplain.”

The berm and the associated fill allow for the best balance between meeting other code standards for screening and meeting the floodplain regulations. The granting of this variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.

(i)b. A showing of good and sufficient cause;

“The fill in the setback area is to accommodate the bermed landscape area used to provide a visually appealing view from the north.”

The applicant has provided extensive information, some technical, in both their request above and in the answers to the questions below, to show sufficient cause for the granting of this variance. The proposed design for the berm will still allow for proper drainage on the subject site as the berm does not encroach on the north property line. The berm is a requirement of the development code in order to provide screening of the pump station from the residential properties to the north.

(i)c. A determination by the Board of Zoning Appeals that failure to grant the variance would result in an Unnecessary Hardship to the applicant, as that term is defined in Section 20-1309(g)(1); and

“Failure to grant the variance will result in less than desirable landscaping screening between the pump station and the property to the north.”

A hardship would exist if not granted as the project would not be able to meet the bufferyard requirements of the Land Development Code. Constructing this development without variances will result in a hardship due not meeting the Land Development Code and impacting the residential use to the north.

(i)d. A determination by the Board of Zoning Appeals that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or in victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.

“None of the fill within the setback is located within the regulatory floodplain area and should not increase flood heights. Granting the variance will not result in public safety issues or other nuisances.”

As part of the preliminary plat application, the project was reviewed by the stormwater engineer for compliance in order to show that the development will not result in increased flood heights. In addition, the granting of these variances will not have an adverse effect to public safety, will cause no additional public expenses, and cause no increased nuisances as a result of this project.

(ii). The Board of Zoning Appeals may approve a zoning variance from the flood protection regulations of Article 12 only after considering all technical evaluations, relevant factors, and standards specified in Article 12 and meeting the terms of K.S.A. 12-734. In addition, the following factors shall be considered:

(ii)a. The danger of injury from materials swept onto other lands;

“There will not be an increase in the danger of an injury from materials being swept onto other lands if this variance is granted.”

There will be no danger from materials swept onto other lands as a result of the granting of these variances.

(ii)b. The danger of life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;

“This fill placement will not cause a rise in the base flood elevation for this area and will not cause any danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage.”

The variance will allow for proper drainage to occur between the berm and the north property line and will not cause danger to life or property due to flooding or erosion damage.

(ii)c. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner or occupant;

“The facility is being constructed higher than the base flood elevation.”

This development is designed to be elevated on fill above the BFE to minimize any flood damage that could possibly arise during a high water event.

(ii)d. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community;

“The facility will send wastewater flow to the new Wakarusa Wastewater Treatment Plant.”

This development will provide a necessary service to the City of Lawrence as a pump station sending flow to the new wastewater treatment plant.

(ii)e. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;

“This particular site adjacent to the Naismith Creek was selected for the pump station due to the convergence of existing interceptor sewers that serve the western and southern portion of the Lawrence.”

This facility, as a product of function, must be located near Naismith Creek and existing wastewater infrastructure.

(ii)f. The availability of alternative locations, not subject to flooding or erosion damage, for the proposed use;

“This location is the most ideal based on past studies and the City owning this property.”

This facility needs to be near Naismith Creek and existing wastewater infrastructure. There is not an alternative location given the existing infrastructure.

(ii)g. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;

“The existing site is currently undeveloped. The City of Lawrence has planned for this facility at the proposed location and it is zoned appropriately.”

The proposed development is a public utility and is being placed on property that has the appropriate zoning. It is a compatible use.

(ii)h. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for that area;

“The City has approved the zoning of this site and has planned for it to go in this location.”

The proposed development conforms to the floodplain management program for the area and the comprehensive plan since it is zoned OS-FP and will meet the floodplain regulations aside from this variance.

(ii)i. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles;

“Even during times of flood, ordinary and emergency vehicles will have access to the site.”

The pump station will be able to be accessed from the north on Louisiana Street in times of flood. With this development, the safety of access to the property in times of flood is not anticipated be impaired.

(ii)j. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the flood waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site; and

“The base flood elevation for the site is 826.50.”

The applicant has provided this information through earlier submittals and it has been approved by the Stormwater Engineer.

(ii)k. The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems, and streets and bridges.

“There should not be any future costs for providing governmental services during or after flood conditions associated with this variance.”

Infrastructure will be built as part of the proposed development and there should be minimal additional cost of providing governmental services during or after flood conditions.

(iii) Generally, variances from flood protection standards may be issued for a Significant Development Project to be erected on a Lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by Lots with existing Structures constructed below the Regulatory Flood level, providing items Section 20-1309(g)(2)(ii)a through Section 20-1309(g)(2)(ii)j have fully been considered. As the lot size increased beyond one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases.

While the project area is over one-half acre, this variance is related to fill and where it can be located. All other aspects of the development will comply with the floodplain regulations.

(iv) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor elevation.

If a floodplain variance is granted, the applicant will receive written notice as part of the action letter that there may be additional cost for flood insurance at this location.

(v) The Planning Director shall maintain the records of all variances and report any variances to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request.

Permanent records of the BZA request, hearings, and action are kept in the Planning Office and are available upon request.

As part of our community’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), staff is required to report any variances granted through bi-annual reporting and cyclical on-site audits. The NFIP allows land owners in the community to purchase flood insurance and the City’s participation in the CRS (Community Rating System) program allows people to obtain a discount on that flood insurance.

E. RECOMMENDATION:

Based upon the findings as identified, Staff’s recommendation is for approval of the variance from the floodplain regulations with respect to non-residential development standards, subject to the following condition:

Broken Arrow Park

Naismith Valley Park

2802 701 3055 2800 751 601 606 1451 1388 1390 801 2912 2900 2908 2904 805 806 810 3000 809 2905 805 809 2911 2913 901

W 31st St

OS

OS-FP

RS7

RM12

RM12D

RM12D-FP

RM12D-FP

B-15-00011: Variance from City Floodplain Management Regulations to

Allow Fill Materials within the Setbacks for the New City Wakarusa

Conveyance System Pump Station No. 10 at 3055 Louisiana Street

January 14, 2015

Subject Property

Broken Arrow Park

Naismith Valley Park

2802 701 3055 2800 751 601 606 1451 1388 1390 801 2912 2900 2908 2904 805 806 810 3000 809 2905 805 809 2911 2913 901

W 31st St

OS

OS-FP

RS7

RM12

RM12D

RM12D-FP

RM12D-FP

B-15-00011: Variance from City Floodplain Management Regulations to

Allow Fill Materials within the Setbacks for the New City Wakarusa

Conveyance System Pump Station No. 10 at 3055 Louisiana Street

January 14, 2015

Subject Property

Broken Arrow Park

Naismith Valley Park

2802 701 3055 2800 751 601 606 1451 1388 1390 801 2912 2900 2908 2904 805 806 810 3000 809 2905 805 809 2911 2913 901

W 31st St

OS

OS-FP

RS7

RM12

RM12D

RM12D-FP

RM12D-FP

B-15-00011: Variance from City Floodplain Management Regulations to

Allow Fill Materials within the Setbacks for the New City Wakarusa

Conveyance System Pump Station No. 10 at 3055 Louisiana Street

January 14, 2015

Subject Property

ITEM NO. 6 REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A REPLACEMENT SUNROOM ADDITION; 2503 PRINCETON BLVD [DRG]

B-15-00012: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2013 edition. The request is for a variance from the minimum 30 feet rear yard building setback required in Section 20-601(a) of the City Code. The variance request seeks approval for a 5.66 feet rear yard setback, which is the current setback at the closest point of an existing sunroom from the rear property line. The request was submitted to allow the property owner the ability to replace the existing sunroom structure with another one that is the same size. The property is located at 2503 Princeton Boulevard. Submitted by Pat Fugitt with Alenco for Janice M. and Manny Moreno, Jr., 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.

B. REASON FOR REQUEST

Applicant’s Request – “Repair/replace a 6’ x 14’ sunroom/nook off of master bedroom. Current

rear setback is approximately 5½’. Currently zoned for a 30’ setback. Property was granted a variance in 1977 to reduce to a 17’ rear setback, the entire rear of home varies from 5½’ to 12’ from property line. No records/permits have been found to explain as to why house is built where it is. Current homeowner wants to do repairs to house to properly maintain it. When they purchased home approximately 1-1½ years ago, they were not told of property line issues by realtor of previous homeowner. The repair will not change the footprint of home and is needed; the current room is basically falling off of house. We would like the entire home to be granted a variance for future new repair as well.”

C. ZONING AND LAND USE

Current Zoning & Land Use: RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) District; residential dwelling.

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: RS10 District to the north, northeast, east and south; single-dwelling residential homes to the north, northeast and east; Lawrence Country Club Golf Course to the south.

RS7 (Single-Dwelling Residential) District to the west and northwest; single-dwelling residential homes. D. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS

Section 20-601(a), “DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS; OCCUPANCY LIMITS – Residential Districts”, has standards defining the minimum building setbacks for residential dwellings based upon each residential zoning district. In the RS10 District, the minimum rear yard building setback is listed to be 30 feet.

E. SPECIFIC ANALYSIS

Section 20-1309(g)(1) in the Development Code lists the five requisite conditions that have to be met for a variance to be approved.

1. The variance request arises from such conditions which are unique to the property in question and not ordinarily found in the same zone or district; and are not created by an action or actions of the property owner or applicant.

Applicant response: “The current owner was unaware and not informed of the placement of the

home on lot when it was constructed.”

The property owners purchased their property without knowing exactly where the rear property boundary was in relation to the location of the existing dwelling. It appears from looking at past aerial imagery that the previous property owner maintained some of the Lawrence Country Club Golf Course property directly behind the subject property and used it as if it was part of their back yard. The images provided below illustrate this point.

2006 Aerial 2014 Aerial

The lot was created with the approval and recording of a Final Plat of Country Club North Addition in July 1962. The lot is located in the southwest corner of this subdivision. Princeton Boulevard curves northwesterly along the property frontage and the west side lot line and south rear lot line are the boundary of the platted subdivision. The lot was created from residual land left over after laying out the street network. None of the lot lines are equal length; the east and west lot lines are nearly parallel to each other, yet the west side lot line is almost 2½ times longer than the east side lot line. Because of the unusual shape of this lot, it was not developed until 1977. Staff was able to find record of a 1977 variance application seeking approval of a rear yard setback reduction from the required 30 feet to a minimum of 17 feet for the construction of a new residential home. No additional records were located to explain the reason why the house has a smaller rear yard setback than granted by the 1977 variance.

2. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents.

Applicant response: “There would be no changes in size of existing structure to be repaired, it

would in fact be a positive improvement for property and property value to home and neighborhood.”

In staff’s opinion, the requested variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. The request, if approved, will allow the current property owner the ability to replace the existing sunroom/nook with an identical size new sunroom. No further setback reduction is involved. The current rear yard building setback has existed for nearly as long as the house without any apparent adverse effect on the rights of adjacent property owners or residents.

Notice was provided to property owners within a 200 feet distance of the subject property to inform them of the application filed by the property owner. As of the time this report was written, staff has not been contacted by any property owner expressing concerns or objections to the applicant’s request. Staff did receive a phone call from Mr. Charles C. Brady, who resides at 2429 Princeton Boulevard (first house to the east). After explaining the nature and purpose for the request, Mr. Brady indicated he had no objections to what they were trying to accomplish and felt it would be an improvement for the property owner.

3. That the strict application of the provisions of this chapter for which variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application. Applicant response: “If variance is not granted the home cannot be properly maintained and it

could affect the property values.”

In staff’s opinion, strict adherence to the Development Code standard requiring a 30 feet rear yard building setback is an unnecessary hardship to the property owner. As previously discussed, this property was granted a variance in 1977 to reduce the rear yard setback to a minimum of 17 feet. Adhering to the approved 17 feet rear yard setback is also an unnecessary hardship upon the property owner because the house was built closer to the rear property line than the variance approved setback. These conditions existed when the current owner purchased the property. There may be no practical way for them to fix the problem. In no way will replacement of the existing sunroom/nook with the same size sunroom located in the same place harm the community’s general welfare.

4. That the variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare.

Applicant response: “There would be no negative affects to property/neighborhood due to

home has been there since construction originally many years ago.”

In staff’s opinion, granting the requested variance will not create an adverse effect upon the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity or general welfare. The reduced rear yard setback has been in existence on this property long before the applicant purchased the property without apparent negative effects to any of these factors. The request is to replace the existing sunroom/nook with the same size sunroom in the same exact location. This action should not cause any change to these factors.

5. That granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of this chapter.

Applicant response: “No negative affects to current code.”

In staff’s opinion, approval of this variance is not opposed to the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. The structure is already noncompliant with the code required rear yard setback; no further reduction in the setback will result. The lot’s shape and boundary line dimensions are unique to this property and a contributing factor for relief from the code required setback. This noncompliance condition was not created by the current property owner; the existing rear yard setback appears to have been created when the house was built in 1977 or within a few years following the home’s construction. The lot backs upon Lawrence Country Club Golf Course, and a considerable amount of open space exists on the east side (result of a vacated street right-of-way which cannot be developed for residential purposes) between the neighbor’s property and residence. Validation of this long standing rear yard setback encroachment by granting the variance should not adversely affect any rights of the neighbors.

Conclusions: Staff’s analysis of this variance application finds the request can meet all five conditions set forth in Section 20-1309(g)(1) of the Development Code the Board must find existing to grant a variance.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the requested variance reducing the rear yard setback for the sunroom replacement to a minimum of 5.66 feet at the closest corner of the sunroom addition, based upon the findings in the staff report that conclude the applicant’s request meets the 5 conditions outlined in Section 20-1309(g)(1) needed for variance approval.

400 400 2433 2507 208 204 2510 2503 2425 2429 2601 2511 2604 2600 2434 108 109 121 115 2502 2506 114 2605 2426 2417 York shire Dr N Cr estlin e Dr Mancheste_{r Rd} Prince ton Blv_d

RS10

RS7

B-15-00012: Rear Yard Building Setback Variance for Replacement

of a Sunroom Addition at 2503 Princeton Boulevard

Lawrence Planning & Development Services Dept January 14, 2015

Subject Property

400 400 2433 2507 208 204 2510 2503 2425 2429 2601 2511 2604 2600 2434 108 109 121 115 2502 2506 114 2605 2426 2417 York shire Dr N Cr estlin e Dr Mancheste_{r Rd} Prince ton Blv_d

RS10

RS7

B-15-00012: Rear Yard Building Setback Variance for Replacement

of a Sunroom Addition at 2503 Princeton Boulevard

Lawrence Planning & Development Services Dept January 14, 2015

Subject Property