LAWRENCE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA OCTOBER 4, … · DRAFT Board of Zoning Appeals 8-2-2012 Page 2 of 3 Christie asked if there was a fence on the west side of the property

LAWRENCE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA OCTOBER 4, 2012 – 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 COMMUNICATIONS Acknowledge any 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. 2 MINUTES Consider approval of the minutes from the August 2, 2012 meeting of the Board. BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING: ITEM NO. 3 FRANKS NORTH STAR TAVERN; 508 LOCUST STREET [DRG] B-12-00169: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2011 edition. The first request is for a variance to reduce the 25 feet front yard setback required in Section 20-601(b) of the City Code to a minimum of 0 feet. The variance is requested to allow for the creation of a small hospitality area in front of the existing commercial building. The second variance is to reduce the required amount of off-street parking spaces which are calculated on the code provisions in Section 20-902, Off-Street Parking Schedule A, for eating and drinking establishments. The subject property is known as Franks North Star Tavern located at 508 Locust Street. Submitted by Frank Dorsey with the permission of Jesse DelCampo, a 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. ITEM NO. 4 700 BLOCK LINCOLN STREET; FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT [AM] B-12-00179: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code in the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2011 edition. The request is from the provisions in Article 12, Sections 20-1204 (e) (1)(i), 20-1204 (e) (2) ii (a), and 20-1204 (e) (2) ii (b) of the City Code as they pertain to development in the Regulatory Floodplain Overlay District. The variance requests are related to a proposed new residential development project on the north side of the 700 block of Lincoln Street and east of Lyon Park in North Lawrence. Submitted by J. Dean Grob, Grob Engineering Services, LLC, for Bluejacket Ford, LLC the property owner of record. The legal description for the property in the appeal and the case files for the public hearing items are available in the Planning Office for review during regular office hours, 8-5 Monday - Friday.

BZA Agenda; October 4, 2012

ITEM NO. 5 MISCELLANEOUS a) Consider any other business to come before the Board.

DRAFT Board of Zoning Appeals 8-2-2012 Page 1 of 3

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Meeting Minutes of August 2nd, 2012 –6:30 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________ Members present: Holley, Lowe, Edie, Kimzey, Christie Members excused: Mahoney, Perez Staff present: Guntert, Parker ITEM NO. 1 COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications before the Board. There were no Board member disclosure of ex parte contacts or abstentions from the discussion and vote on agenda items under consideration. No agenda items deferred. ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES Motioned by Holley, seconded by Edie, to approve the July 5, 2012 Board of Zoning Appeals minutes.

Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 BEGIN PUBLIC HEARING: ITEM NO. 3 515 LINCOLN STREET; FENCE SETBACK [DRG] B-12-00075: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2011 edition. The first request is for a variance to allow a wood screen fence to be constructed in a code restricted area on a corner lot having its rear yard abutting the side yard of the adjoining property. Section 20-602(e)(6)(ix)(b) in the Development Code is the governing provision in this case. It prohibits a fence, wall or hedge to be placed within the exterior side yard area of the property a distance equal to ½ the front setback for the adjoining property within a measured distance of 25 feet from the common property line shared with the abutting property. The second request is for a variance from the accessory structure setback requirements in Section 20-533(3) of the Development Code. The request is to allow an 8 feet by 10 feet shed to be located 13 feet from the exterior side lot line instead of the code required 25 feet. The subject property is located at 515 Lincoln Street. Submitted by Dale E. Daney, 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. Lowe asked Mr. Guntert if the proposed shed would be built inside the fence. Mr. Guntert stated the shed would be built inside the fence.


Christie asked if there was a fence on the west side of the property. Mr. Guntert stated the applicant had intentions of fencing all of the back yard. Holley asked Mr. Guntert if the maximum fence height was six feet. Mr. Guntert said the City Code allowed a front yard fence to be built four feet tall. He viewed the exterior side yard as having the same standards as an interior side yard fence which could be up to six feet in height. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Mr. Daney said Staff gave a good presentation regarding the project. He said currently there was not a fence along the west side of his property. Holley asked Mr. Daney if the proposed height of the fence would be six feet tall. Mr. Daney stated the fence would be built six feet tall. Kimzey asked Mr. Daney how tall the proposed accessory building would be. Mr. Daney stated the accessory building would be an 8x10 Tuff Shed. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Motioned by Holley, seconded by Kimzey, to close the public hearing.

Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 BOARD DISCUSSION Holley said the property across Lincoln Court also had a fence. He stated he was concerned with the fence along the east side of the property. Mr. Guntert stated the sidewalk was within the roadway and utility easement that ran the length of the lot just inside the platted property line. The fence and accessory structure cannot be built in the easement; the applicant planned to build the fence next to the easement edge and the accessory structure would be a foot or two west of the fence. Lowe asked if the east fence line would be built to the front of the house. Mr. Daney said no, he planned to stop the fence three to four feet south of the back wall of the house. Lowe said the area in question on this property was within a cul-de-sac and there was no opposition from neighbors. He observed that many other homes in the area had privacy fences.


ACTION TAKEN Motioned by Kimzey, seconded by Edie, to approve the variance request for an accessory structure and fence, at 515 Lincoln Street, based on the recommendation and findings of fact in the staff report. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 ITEM NO. 4 MISCELLANEOUS a) No other business to come before the Board. ACTION TAKEN Motioned by Holley, seconded by Christie, to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 ADJOURN- 6:50 p.m. Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.

BZA Staff Report October 4, 2012

Item No. 3; Page 1 of 5

ITEM NO. 3

FRANK’S NORTH STAR TAVERN; 508 LOCUST STREET

B-12-00169: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2011 edition. The first request is for a variance to reduce the 25 feet front yard setback required in Section 20-601(b) of the City Code to a minimum of 0 feet. The variance is requested to allow for the creation of a small hospitality area in front of the existing commercial building. The second variance is to reduce the required amount of off-street parking spaces which are calculated on the code provisions in Section 20-902, Off-Street Parking Schedule A, for eating and drinking establishments. The subject property is known as Franks North Star Tavern located at 508 Locust Street. Submitted by Frank Dorsey with the permission of Jesse DelCampo, a property owner of record. B. REASON FOR REQUEST Applicant’s Request - Front Setback

– “I am requesting a variance on the requirement that there be a 25 foot setback on the property. I am requesting a setback of 0’ to the property line, to allow for patio seating in the front of the establishment. This is a unique, non-conforming building. When it was built in 1951, the entire block was zoned Industrial and there was no setback requirement when it was built. The variance would change the setback by only about 2 feet.

The variance would allow me to open sidewalk to outside seating. This would enhance the feel of the neighborhood, as well as create a friendly, neighborhood atmosphere. I have received positive feedback from the neighbors about this proposal, as well as Ted Boyle, the head of the North Lawrence Improvement Association.” Parking Space Reduction

– “I am requesting a variance for the parking requirement that I increase my parking for the outside seating area for which I have filed a (site) plan. As I understand it, the requirement is that I have 1 parking space for every 3 people, plus 1 space for each employee on the busiest shift. The outside seating will mainly be used to allow people who are already here to have a cigarette and relax outdoors. Since I have never been close to reaching my capacity, the additional seating should have little or no effect on the parking situation. Frank’s North Star Tavern is a quiet, neighborhood bar and many patrons simply walk or bicycle to it.”

C. ZONING AND LAND USE Current Zoning & Land Use: CS (Commercial Strip) District; commercial building

and associated parking lot. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: IG (General Industrial) District to the north; Union

Pacific Railroad right-of-way. RS5 (Single-Dwelling Residential) District to the

south; single-family residential use. RSO (Single-Dwelling Residential – Office) District to

the east; residential use. CS District to the west; residential and commercial

uses.



D. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS

Section 20-601(b) “Nonresidential Districts” Density and Dimensional Standards Table, identifies the standards for minimum building setback, coverage, lot size, height, etc. for all nonresidential zoning districts. The minimum front yard setback in the CS District is 25 feet. Section 20-902 “Off-Street Parking Schedule A” lists the parking space requirements for different land use types. The method of calculating the minimum number of vehicle parking spaces for a “Bar or Lounge” or a “Brewpub” is based upon occupancy and number of employees. The standard is 1 space per 3 persons based on maximum occupancy + 1 space per employee based on the largest shift. In this case, the building occupancy is 260 people and the largest shift of employees is 3 people. The Code required parking, based upon these standards, is 90 spaces. 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: Front Setback

– “This property was built in 1951 when the block was zoned Industrial. It was not required to have a setback. For this reason I am requesting a variance that will allow me to place outdoor seating at my establishment.”

Parking Space Reduction

-- “508 Locust is a unique structure that, when built in the 1950’s was zoned Industrial. For this reason, no consideration was made for including a seating area. If the building were being constructed today, an outside seating area would most likely be added as a matter of course. As mine is one of the few buildings that does actually have its own, dedicated parking lot, the business is already better situated that other establishments, in North Lawrence or elsewhere.”

The subject property is a developed commercial property built in the early 1950’s according to information provided by the applicant and the Douglas County Appraiser’s Office property appraisal record. The building is described as a downtown storefront style structure because of its location on the lot relative to the front property line. There are several other nearby properties that have similar front building setbacks to what this property has. In conjunction with the building, there is a small parking lot for approximately 16 cars located just to the east of the building. The property has been used as a club or bar for many years and the existing site conditions predate the effective date of the current Development Code (July 1, 2006). These existing site conditions were not created by actions of the applicant. The only change the applicant wants to make is the creation of a small (approximate 400 s.f.) outside hospitality area where people can take their drink and smoke if they want to do that.



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


– “The adjacent property owners have signed the Sidewalk Dining & Hospitality License Adjacent Property Owner and Tenant Permission form. They are happy with the direction the bar has taken and have no issues with the variance. The fact that the property is directly across the street from the railroad tracks means that noise will not be an issue, as the neighbors are accustomed to the sound of trains constantly going by.”


– “As documented elsewhere, the adjacent property owners and residents have all been notified and have actually expressed encouragement at the prospect of relaxing al fresco in the neighborhood. Ted Boyle, the head of the North Lawrence Improvement Association, has also been supportive of this project.”

In staff’s opinion, the addition of approximately 400 square feet of outside hospitality area for customers at the tavern is not anticipated to create an adverse affect upon the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. The applicant provided staff with a form signed by the adjacent property owner and tenant to the east and west of this property indicating they have no objections to the outside seating area being proposed by the applicant. Also, the Union Pacific Railroad is directly across the street from the property; it is unlikely they would have objections to the request. Residential neighbors to the south should not notice any appreciable change because the outside area is confined to the north and northwest corner of the property. Right now, there is no defined smoking area outside the building for customers at the tavern to use. The applicant is trying to accommodate this venue via the proposed hospitality area along the front of the building and extending around the northwest corner of the building. A few chairs, tables and benches will be provided for patrons to use while drinking their beverage and/or smoking a cigarette. Staff does not believe the addition of this small outside hospitality area will create additional parking demand for the tavern; it primarily serves existing customers. Staff received a phone call from a property owner within the notification area who shared some past history of criminal problems the neighborhood has experienced with previous businesses operated from this location. They acknowledged that the new business owner has done a lot to clean up the use and want them to be successful. The concern they have with the variance is that it runs with the land and not the ownership. If this applicant closes down the tavern, the next operator might not be as good a neighbor. They wanted to know if there was some way to condition the variance for the outside hospitality area. The applicant has submitted a minor site plan to the City for the outside hospitality area which is currently in review by City Staff. If these variances are approved by the Board, the applicant still needs to obtain a Sidewalk Dining & Hospitality License and the approval of a Use of Right-of-Way Agreement with the City because some of the proposed area is in the Locust Street right-of-way. The license and right-of-way agreement are issued to the business operator. They do not automatically transfer to a new business owner. The City may also revoke a license for just cause.



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.


– “The environment in the front of the building is ideal for people who wish to relax with a drink or a cigarette while watching trains go by. The only other option currently is to put the seating in the parking lot. This would be somewhat dangerous. It would also increase capacity while decreasing parking, which is obviously not ideal.”


– “By not having the ability to sit outside while enjoying a beverage, my establishment will be less desirable in the eyes of many smokers. Much of the appeal of this establishment is the social interaction that goes along with both smoking and drinking, and inhibiting this will make my bar less attractive to such patrons. This, ultimately, will affect my bottom line. As a fledgling business, I am trying to give customers as much reason as possible to frequent my establishment. Since this town offers ample venues for drinking and socializing, I feel not allowing the variance, thereby making the outside seating an impossibility, will definitely constitute ‘unnecessary hardship’ by making me less competitive.”

In staff’s opinion, strict application of the front setback and parking space requirements in the Development Code are an unnecessary hardship to the property owner. The building and parking layout were constructed prior to the adoption of this Code. These site conditions are considered to be nonconformities with respect to current Code standards. The property may continue to be used for uses permitted in the base zoning district (CS) without having to bring the existing site improvements into compliance with the current Code standards. The fact that the applicant is trying to add an additional 400 square feet of public use space with the addition of an outdoor seating area is what prompted the need for this variance request. In staff’s opinion, making the applicant comply with the Code standards for the building setback and off-street parking spaces is unreasonable, impractical and an unnecessary hardship for the applicant and property owner.

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


– “Café seating is popular downtown, and I feel it would be an enhancement of the up and coming North Lawrence neighborhood. It will create a sense of neighborhood and encourage commerce by displaying a relaxed atmosphere where people can enjoy themselves. I don’t believe there will be any negative impact.”


– “Allowing the parking variance will simply allow people to sit outside and smoke while having a drink. Since people already step outside to smoke, this will basically just give a defined area for them to do it. It will not adversely affect the public in any way that I can conceive. To the contrary, having the patio seating adds to the appeal of the neighborhood. By improving the atmosphere, it could in theory increase the prosperity of North Lawrence by encouraging development and making Locust feel more like a downtown area.”

In staff’s opinion, granting these variances, allowing the owner the ability to create a defined space for outdoor hospitality, will not adversely affect any of the factors listed above. In some ways it may actually help protect the public safety, morals, order, convenience and general welfare because it will allow the applicant the ability to create a defined space on the property for people to use to smoke and enjoy a drink. Customers currently can leave the building and smoke wherever they want but they cannot take their drink outside the building.



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


– “The variance would not be in opposition to the development of the neighborhood, and could actually be considered an enhancement. I have spoken with Ted Boyle, and he has been encouraging about the new direction of the bar. I am also on good terms with the immediate neighbors, as well as several others in the immediate and surrounding blocks. I have not encountered negative feedback about the prospect of this potential enhancement of the neighborhood.”


– “The outside dining area will help make Frank’s North Star Tavern, and Locust Street generally feel like a more friendly, relaxed place. As previously stated, the seating area will be less an increasing of the seating capacity, and more a granting customers a defined space in which to do what they’re already doing: going outside to smoke. But with the added bonus of being able to take drinks outside. As the property is zoned Commercial Strip, I feel that this is exactly the ‘spirit and intent of the Development Code’. The encouragement of Ted Boyle and the North Lawrence Improvement Association is further indication of this.”

In staff’s opinion, granting these variances does not oppose the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Essentially, the requested variances recognize the existing conditions that have been present since before the effective date of the Development Code. In staff’s opinion, the outdoor hospitality area simply offers another seating option for those already frequenting the tavern and it probably will not create much of an additional parking space demand. Conclusions:

Staff’s analysis finds the applicant’s requests satisfy the five conditions set forth in Section 20-1309(g)(1) of the Development Code that the Board must find existing to approve a variance.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the variance to reduce the 25 feet front building setback required in Section 20-601(b) of the Development Code, to a minimum of 0 feet from the north property line along Locust Street. Staff also recommends approval of a variance from the code provisions in Section 20-902 of the Development Code requiring approximately 90 off-street parking spaces for the tavern, to a minimum of approximately 16 parking stalls in the existing parking area on the property. Staff’s recommendations are based upon the findings in the staff report that conclude these requests meet the 5 conditions outlined in Section 20-1309(g)(1) needed for approval and are made subject to the following conditions:

1) The applicant obtains site plan approval from the City, a Sidewalk Dining & Hospitality License, and a Use of the Right-of-Way Agreement. The variances remain valid as long as a Sidewalk Dining & Hospitality License and a Use of the Right-of-Way Agreement are kept current.

Description of variance requested:

I am requesting a variance for the parking requirement that I increase my parking for the outside seating area for which I have filed a plan. As I understand it, the requirement is that I have 1 parking space for every 3 people, plus 1 space for each employee on the busiest shift. The outside seating is will mainly be used to allow people who are already here to have a cigarette and relax outdoors. Since I have never been close to reaching my capacity, the additional seating should have little or no effect on the parking situation. Frank’s North Star Tavern is a quiet, neighborhood bar and many patrons simply walk or bicycle to it.

1. That the variance request arises from such conditions which are unique to the property in question and not ordinarily found in the same zoning or district and are not created by action(s) of the property owner or applicant:

508 Locust is a unique structure that, when built in the 1950s was zoned Industrial. For this reason, no consideration was made for including a seating area. If the building were being constructed today, an outside seating area would most likely be added as a matter of course. As mine is one of the few buildings that does actually have its own, dedicated parking lot, the business is already better situated than other establishments, in North Lawrence or elsewhere.

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

As documented elsewhere, the adjacent property owners and residents have all been notified and have actually expressed encouragement at the prospect of relaxing al fresco in the neighborhood. Ted Boyle, the head of the North Lawrence Improvement Association, has also been supportive of this project.

From: Frank DorseyTo: David GuntertSubject: Parking VarianceDate: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 3:53:07 PMAttachments: Adjacent Property Owner and Tenant Permission.pdf

David,

I called and left a message on your voice mail. Basically, I think the absolute maxparking I can figure is about 19 cars. Am I correct in assuming that I can't includestreet parking? With a capacity of 260 on the inside, we would in theory need 90parking spots. But like I said, we've never been near capacity. There's also a lot ofwalk-in traffic from the neighborhood, as well as cyclists.

I've attached the Adjacent Property Owner and Tenant Permission document thatMary said you wanted.

Is there a downloadable Parking Variance somewhere? I can't seem to locate one.

Thank you,

Frank DorseyFrank's North Star Tavern
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

City of Lawrence Sidewalk Dining & Hospitality^ License

Adjacent Propert}' Owner & Tenant Permission

Today's Date: Name of Business: Frank's North Star Tavern

Name of Business Owner: Frank Dorsey

E-Mail Address: dormatll c@gmai 1. com

Business Mailing Address

Street: 756 Walnut St

City: Lawrence

State: KS

Zip: 66044

Business Phone: 785-856-5080

As OWNER of a property located next to the above referenced business establishment, I do not hold any objection to the stated business establishment's Sidevv'alk Dining License. Owner Name: Owner SignatureiVx. f' \\ Date:,

Address of Owner Street: . / pi^y- State: Zip:

As OWNER of a property located next to the above referenced business establishment, I do not hold any objection to the stated business establishment's Sidewalk Dining License. Owner Name: Owner Signature: Date:

Address of Owner Street: City: State: Zip:

As TENANT of a property located next to the above referenced business establishment, I do not hold any objection to the stated business esJaWishm^nt's Sidewalk Dining License. Tenant Name: : Tenant ^^^^^^ j^^- - ' ' ^^ - , . . . ^^

, — ^

Date:

Address of Tenant Street: ' \ City: State: Zip:

As TENANT of a property located next to the above referenced business establishment, I do not hold any objection to the stated business establishment's Sidewalk Dining License. Tenant Name: Tenant Signature: Date:

Address of Tenant Street: City: State: Zip:



3. That strict application of the provisions of this chapter for which the variance is requested would constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application:

By not having the ability to sit outside while enjoying a beverage, my establishment will be less desirable in the eyes of many smokers. Much of the appeal of this establishment is the social interaction that goes along with both smoking and drinking, and inhibiting this will make my bar less attractive to such patrons. This, ultimately, will affect my bottom line. As a fledgling business, I am trying to give customers as much reason as possible to frequent my establishment. Since this town offers ample venues for drinking and socializing, I feel not allowing the variance, thereby making the outside seating an i1mpossibility, will definitely constitute “unnecessary hardship” by making me less competitive.

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

Allowing the parking variance will simply allow people to sit outside and smoke while having a drink. Since people already step outside to smoke, this will basically just give a defined area for them to do it. It will not adversely affect the public in any way that I can conceive. To the contrary, having the patio seating adds to the appeal of the neighborhood. By improving the atmosphere, it could in theory increase the prosperity of North Lawrence by encouraging development and making Locust feel more like a downtown area.

5. That granting the variance desired would not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the Development Code:

The outside dining area will help make Frank’s North Star Tavern, and Locust Street generally feel like a more friendly, relaxed place. As previously stated, the seating area will be less an increasing of the seating capacity, and more a granting customers a defined space in which to do what they’re already doing: going outside to smoke. But with the added bonus of being able to take drinks outside. As the property is zoned Commercial Strip, I feel that this is exactly the “spirit and intent of the Development Code.” The encouragement of Ted Boyle and the North Lawrence Improvement Association is further indication of this.

SIGNATURE I/We, the undersigned am/are the (owner(s)), (duly authorized agent), (Circle One) of the aforementioned property. By execution of my/our signature, I/we do hereby officially_apply for variances as indicated above.

Signature(s): Date

Elm St

Maple St

Locust St

N 6th S

t

N 5th S

t

N 5th S

t

IG

RS5

GPI RS7

RS7

RS7

RSOCS RSO

508

430

225

529 501

500

433

500

231

434

547 425

227

543

508

532

443

500

444

523

546 524 444

535

536

503 513

504

221

603

602 438

540

600

232

223

436 428 432

454

449

604

431 519 537

500

439 507 539 435 527 533

226

426 430 400 440 444 448 450

223

441

530 532

447 421

623

533 220

400

400

400 512 500 514

427

446 436

226

422

417

222

B-12-00169: Variances from the Front Yard Setback and Off-StreetParking Requirements at Franks North Star Tavern; 508 Locust Street

Lawrence Planning & Development Services DeptSeptember 13, 2012

Area RequestedScale: 1 Inch = 150 Feet

David Guntert

From: Mary MillerSent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:38 PMTo: David GuntertCc: 'Frank Dorsey'; 'Dormat Bar'Subject: FW: variance for hospitality area

David, Frank may not be able to get the parking figures quickly to determine if a variance is needed for Franks Bar in addition to the front setback requirement. Could you give Frank a deadline for including the parking information and variance request on this application? If you can’t meet this deadline, Frank, you could defer the variance one month to allow yourself time to gather the parking information. The other option would be to leave the parking variance for a little later (if it is needed). We will need to determine the occupancy and parking requirement with the site plan review and would know if a variance was necessary at that time. It would mean submitting a second variance application. Thanks, Mary Mary K Miller, AICP, City/County Planner- [email protected] Planning Division | www.lawrenceks.org/pds P.O. Box 708, Lawrence,KS 66044 Office (785) 832-3147 | Fax (785) 832-3160 "Your opinion counts! Customer feedback helps us serve you better. Please tell us how we’re doing by completing this short online Customer Satisfaction Survey: http://lawrenceks.org/pds/survey/satisfaction."

From: Mary Miller Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:43 AM To: 'Frank Dorsey'; 'Dormat Bar' Cc: David Guntert Subject: variance for hospitality area Frank, I talked with David Guntert today about the variance for the hospitality area. Have you had a chance to meet with the Fire Code Official yet so they could determine the occupancy of your bar and the proposed hospitality area? This will allow you to determine the amount of parking that is required. (1 per 3 persons at maximum occupancy plus 1 per employee on largest shift.) Then you could measure the parking area and using the parking/drive aisle dimensions in Article 9 of the Development Code you could calculate how many parking spaces currently exist on site. Based on this information, you would know if you needed to request a variance from the parking requirement as well as the front yard setback. In order to include the parking variance (if one is needed) with the front yard setback on the October BZA agenda it would be necessary to provide this information to David very shortly. David mentioned that the BZA application referenced a copy of the signed form the adjacent neighbor signed for the hospitality license. He would like a copy of that for the BZA file, if possible.

I’ve copied David on this email so you can communicate directly with him on the variance items. I will also need the parking information, so please include me in that discussion. If you have any questions or I can be of any assistance, please let me know. Thanks, Mary Mary K Miller, AICP, City/County Planner- [email protected] Planning Division | www.lawrenceks.org/pds P.O. Box 708, Lawrence,KS 66044 Office (785) 832-3147 | Fax (785) 832-3160 "Your opinion counts! Customer feedback helps us serve you better. Please tell us how we’re doing by completing this short online Customer Satisfaction Survey: http://lawrenceks.org/pds/survey/satisfaction."

City of Lawrence Sidewalk Dining & Hospitality^ License

Adjacent Propert}' Owner & Tenant Permission

Today's Date: Name of Business: Frank's North Star Tavern

Name of Business Owner: Frank Dorsey

E-Mail Address: dormatll c@gmai 1. com

Business Mailing Address

Street: 756 Walnut St

City: Lawrence

State: KS

Zip: 66044

Business Phone: 785-856-5080

As OWNER of a property located next to the above referenced business establishment, I do not hold any objection to the stated business establishment's Sidevv'alk Dining License. Owner Name: Owner SignatureiVx. f' \\ Date:,

Address of Owner Street: . / pi^y- State: Zip:

As OWNER of a property located next to the above referenced business establishment, I do not hold any objection to the stated business establishment's Sidewalk Dining License. Owner Name: Owner Signature: Date:

Address of Owner Street: City: State: Zip:

As TENANT of a property located next to the above referenced business establishment, I do not hold any objection to the stated business esJaWishm^nt's Sidewalk Dining License. Tenant Name: : Tenant ^^^^^^ j^^- - ' ' ^^ - , . . . ^^

, — ^

Date:

Address of Tenant Street: ' \ City: State: Zip:






Item 4, Page 1 of 9

ITEM NO. 4

700 BLOCK LINCOLN STREET; FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT [AAM]

B-12-00179: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1309 of the Land Development Code in the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2011 edition. The request is from the provisions in Article 12, Sections 20-1204 (e) (1)(i), 20-1204 (e) (2) ii (a), and 20-1204 (e) (2) ii (b) of the City Code as they pertain to development in the Regulatory Floodplain Overlay District. The variance requests are related to a proposed new residential development project on the north side of the 700 block of Lincoln Street and east of Lyon Park in North Lawrence. Submitted by J. Dean Grob, Grob Engineering Services, LLC, for Bluejacket Ford, LLC the property owner of record. A. REASON FOR REQUEST & PROJECT SUMMARY (Applicant responses are in italics)

“Variances Requested: 1. Pursuant to Land Development Code Section 20-1204(e)(l )(i), "fill shall not be placed in the Setback areas except at approved Access Points". The Owners of this property request a variance to this requirement to allow fill placement in the Setback areas to provide a more uniform front and side yards thus provide less steep driveways. 2. Pursuant to Land Development Code Section 20-1204(e)(2)(ii)a, "No fill dirt shall be placed closer than five (5) feet to the perimeter Lot Line(s) of the property". The Owner requests a variance to this requirement for the interior Lot Lines between the proposed lots. No fill is proposed for the exterior side yards. 3. Pursuant to Land Development Code Section 20-1204(e)(2)(ii)b, ''No fill dirt shall be placed greater than 20 feet from the structure". The Owner requests a variance to this requirement for the rear yard to allow for a 20 foot section of reasonably flat yard area above the existing floodplain. The fill will slope from the flatter area at 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (max.) for an additional 14 feet. Only minimal grading Is proposed In the yard areas that will remain within the floodplain. The total estimated floodplain fill for the project is 9,400 cubic yards. The portion of the total fill which is defined by the three variance request is approximately 1, 500 cubic yards”

The applicant seeks a variance from the requirements in Sections 20-1204 (e)(1)(i), 20-1204 (e)(2)(ii)a, and 20-1204 (e)(2)(ii)b of the development code related to the placement of fill for residential development in the regulatory floodplain. The applicant is planning to construct an eight(8) lot residential subdivision on the north side of Lincoln Street between 7th and 8th Streets. The


Item 4, Page 2 of 9

entire site is located in the regulatory floodplain. Floodplain regulations state that all new residential development has a finished floor elevation 2’ above the BFE (Base Flood Elevation). In this location the BFE is 821.7 M.S.L. and in order to meet that requirement it is necessary for the applicant to place fill on the site in order to raise the elevation of the property. Code permits the placement of fill, subject to a fill permit from Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources(DWR) and code standards. The applicant has applied for the DWR permit and that is part of the review for the floodplain permit application. Under the current code standards, the applicant can place fill on each individual lot and develop the eight lots in that manner. However, in working with city staff, the applicant is proposing to fill the entire site (all 8 lots) at once in order to improve the drainage on the site, create more reasonable building lots, and make the proposed driveways not as steep. Drainage on the site will be improved because it will allow the southern part of the development to be sloped so that drainage will be carried to the west and the anticipated 5th

and Maple Pump Station to be constructed in 2014. This proposal does not meet the code requirements for fill on residential lots.

The applicant is requesting a variance from three code sections:

1. Land Development Code Section 20-1204(e)(1)(i), Fill shall not be placed in the Setback areas except at approved Access Points". This variance will allow fill to be placed up to the property line on the interior lot lines (5’). The only exception is that fill will not be placed closer than 5’ from the westernmost and easternmost property line of the entire development. The variance will allow for less steep driveways, better overall site drainage and a larger flat rear yard.

2. Land Development Code Section 20-1204(e)(2)(ii)a, "No fill dirt shall be placed closer than five (5) feet to the perimeter Lot Line(s) of the property". This variance will allow fill to be placed up to the property line on interior lot lines, except for the westernmost and easternmost property lines. The variance will allow better overall site drainage.

3. Land Development Code Section 20-1204(e)(2)(ii)b, ''No fill dirt shall be placed greater than 20 feet from the structure". This variance will allow fill to be placed greater than 20’ from the structure on the front and rear of the structure in order to allow less steep driveways, better overall site drainage and a rear yard that is flat. In order to represent this variance, the applicant has provided a building envelope on the accompanying drawing which will also be noted on the final plat document. The applicant has also provided a cross section on the drawing which dictates where fill will be placed and what the proposed slopes are for the development.

The applicant will also need to obtain a preliminary plat, final plat and floodplain permit in order for this development to proceed. B. ZONING AND LAND USE Current Zoning and Land Use RS7 (Residential Single-Family)

District; Vacant ground. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use OS (Open Space) District to

west; Existing park (Lyons).


Item 4, Page 3 of 9

RS7 (Residential Single-Family)

District to north and east; Existing residences.

IG (Industrial General) District to

south; Existing residences and industrial development.

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 Floodplain Overlay 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

anchorage to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement 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;


Item 4, Page 4 of 9

(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.

(2) Additional Standards for Residential Construction

(i) Proposed New Construction or Substantial-Improvement of any residential Structures, including Mobile Homes or Manufactured Homes, shall comply with the following:

a . The Lowest Floor shall be elevated a minimum of two

(2) feet above the Base Flood Elevation. A licensed land surveyor or licensed professional engineer shall provide written certification of the Lowest Floor elevation to the Floodplain Administrator as set out in Section 20-1203(c)(7).


Item 4, Page 5 of 9

b . For the portion of a property within the Floodplain Overlay District, the maximum impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 30%.

(ii) Fill on individual Lots shall meet the following requirements:

a . No fill dirt shall be placed closer than five (5) feet to perimeter Lot Line(s) of the property;

b . No fill dirt shall be placed greater than 20 feet from the Structure;

c . Fill dirt shall be placed on a Lot so that it does not exceed a 3:1 slope; and

d . Where additional elevation over the Height that can be achieved from a 3:1 slope is needed to meet the requirements of this Article, the additional elevation shall be met through the use of vertical walls and the construction of non-residential areas, such as garages, crawl spaces with gravel floors, or similar structurally sound designs, as part of the residential Structure.

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. Section 20-1201(b) Floodplain Overlay District – Property within the City Limits on 03/01/03 (1) The Floodplain Overlay District boundaries for properties within the city’s

corporate limits as of March 1, 2003 shall be consistent with the Base Flood Elevations and Floodplain widths identified by the FIS and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for “Douglas County Kansas and Incorporated Areas dated November 7, 2001”.

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:

“The design has made the attempt to minimize the effects of fill on flood hazard while maintaining the aesthetics of the neighborhood with reasonable grading practices.”

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

Staff has worked with the applicant to modify the design of this project in order to achieve an outcome that benefits all. This design allows for the best balance between a usable design and meeting the floodplain regulations in order to


Item 4, Page 6 of 9

mitigate the floodplain effects of the development. 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 variances are being requested to maintaining the aesthetics of the neighborhood with reasonable grading practices rather than non-uniform grading of residential yards”

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 modified design that requires variances will allow for less-steep driveways and better drainage on the site as a whole.

(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

“The variance request if denied would mostly impart an undue hardship on the ultimate landowner with less than desirable front, side and rear yards.”

A hardship would exist if not granted as the project would not be able to be constructed as proposed. Constructing this development without variances will result in a less desirable development with less than ideal drainage and steeper driveways. In addition, the rear yards of the residences would be shallow and steeply sloped.

(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

.

“The Kansas Department of Agriculture has verbally approved the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study/Stormwater Management Analysis which will not result in increased flood heights above those allowed by regulations, thus not imposing additional threats to public safety or expense to the public. The additional fill will not create any nuisances, cause fraud or victimization of the public or conflict with the spirit or intent of the local laws and ordinances.”

As part of the preliminary plat application, the applicant submitted a Hydrologic and Hydraulic study that will be reviewed 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 affect 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:


Item 4, Page 7 of 9

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

“A fill buffer has been shown which would not allow fill to be swept into other lands which could cause danger of injury.”

;

Per code, these the finished floor of these structures will be at least 2’ above BFE (Base Flood Elevation). There will be no danger from materials swept onto other lands as a result of the granting of these variances.

“The design does not create any undue danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage. Erosion control measures will be inplace to assure minimization of erosion.”

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

The proposed development is designed to be constructed above the BFE and therefore will be reasonably safe from flooding. The variance will allow for better site drainage 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

“The variances are requested to protect the individual owner from potential flood damage in the future, while still protecting the adjacent property owners.”

or occupant;

As explained above, this development is designed to be elevated on fill above the BFE to minimize any flood damage that could possible arise during a high water event.

“N/A.”

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

This development will provide eight(8) single family residential homes for the community.

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

“N/A”

;

This is not applicable.

“A majority of North Lawrence is susceptible to flooding, but this location is adjacent to Lyons Park which makes it desirable for residential homes. Alternative locations within the property would increase the site fill requirements and need for additional variances.”

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

This land is zoned residential and structures can be built on the land today adhering to the floodplain regulations. The entire property is essentially within the floodplain and there are no alternate locations to developing the permitted uses on the property. The granting of these variances allow for development with better drainage and a more efficient lot layout for the future owners than would be achieved building to standards without the granting of variances.


Item 4, Page 8 of 9

“The existing property is directly adjacent to a city park and is zoned residential so it is completely compatible.”

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

The proposed development is residential in nature and is being placed on property that has existing residential zoning. It is a compatible use.

(ii)h. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain

“The comprehensive plan calls for this area to be developed as residential and floodplain regulation dictate that property be filled for development.”

management program for that area;

The proposed development conforms to the floodplain management program for the area and the comprehensive plan since it is zoned residential and will meet the floodplain regulations aside from these variances.

(ii)i. The safety of access

“Lincoln street presently exists for access to the site. No additional roads would be required for access”

to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles;

Lincoln Street sits below BFE when traveling west away from the development. In times of flooding, it may be underwater toward the west, but access to Lincoln Street may be possible on the east near 8th Street. With or without the granting of the variances, this development may not be completely reachable from Lincoln Street, since no changes are proposed to the street itself. The placement of fill as proposed will allow the filled portion of the development to remain dry in a 100-year flood event, whereas without the variances, only the individual building sites will remain dry. With this development, no changes are anticipated to the safety of access to the property in times of flood.

“The Kansas Department of Agriculture has verbally approved the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study/Stormwater Management Analysis which will not result in increased flood heights above those allowed by regulations.”

(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 applicant has provided this information through the submittal of a Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study and it will be reviewed as part of the applications for preliminary plat, final plat and floodplain development permit.

(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

“There would be no additional costs for governmental services during and after flooding conditions. All infrastructure is in place for the proposed subdivision.”

and bridges.


Item 4, Page 9 of 9

Infrastructure currently exists at the site and there should 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, these variances are all related to fill and where it can be located. All other aspects of the development will comply with the floodplain regulations.

.

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.

(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.

(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 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, staff is required to report any variances granted through bi-annually 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, the Staff’s recommendation is for approval of the variance from the floodplain regulations with respect to non-residential development standards, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of a local Floodplain Development Permit, and 2. Approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat for the subdivision showing the

proposed building envelopes.

N 8th S

t

Lyon St

Maple St

Lincoln St

Grant St

Maple St

IG

RS7

OS

RS7

RM12D

CS

700

700

700

780

801

700

760

700 769 545

807

765

760

742

517 506

731

0 LY

722

417

731

733 753

755

749

772

716

775 769

802

745

767

713

711 741

725

808

766

600

765

745

758 742

759

782

701

719

761

725 737 741

741

749 710

754 750 746 804 700

524

700

805

767

625

637

810

785 789

804

700

649

745

700 741 751

700

706

755 713 775 771 779 719

749 719 805 801

809 701

700

819

719

B-12-00179: Variances from the Floodplain Overlay District Relatedto Fill Standards for Properties in the District; 700 Block Lincoln StreetLawrence Planning & Development Services Dept

September 13, 2012Area Requested

Scale: 1 Inch = 200 Feet

Section 20-1309 (g)

(2) 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:

a. a determination by the Board of Zoning Appeals that the variance is

the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard to afford relief; “the design has made the attempt to minimize the effects of fill on flood hazard while maintaining the aesthetics of the neighbor with reasonable grading practices”

b. a showing of good and sufficient cause; “the variances are being

requested to maintaining the aesthetics of the neighbor with reasonable grading practices rather than non-uniform grading of residential yards”

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 “the variance request if denied would mostly impart an undue hardship on the ultimate landowner with less than desirable front, side and rear yards”

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. “the Kansas Department of Agriculture has verbally approved the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study/Stormwater Management Analysis which will not result in increased flood heights above those allow by regulations, thus not imposing additional threats to public safety or expense to the public. The additional fill will not create any nuisances, cause fraud or victimization of the public or conflict with the spirit or intent of the local laws and ordinances”

(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:

a. the danger of injury from materials swept onto other lands; “a fill

buffer has been shown which would not allow fill to be swept into other lands which could cause danger of injury”

b. the danger of life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;

“the design does not create any undue danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage. Erosion control measures will be inplace to assure minimization of erosion”

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 variances are requested to protect the individual owner

from potential flood damage in the future, while still protecting the adjacent property owners”

d. the importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; “N/A”

e. the necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;

“N/A” f. the availability of alternative locations, not subject to flooding or

erosion damage, for the proposed use; a majority of North Lawrence is susceptible to flooding, but this location is adjacent to Lyons Park which makes it desirable for residential homes. Alternative locations within the property would increase the site fill requirements and need for additional variances”

g. the compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated

development; “the existing property is directly adjacent to a city park and is zoned residential so it is completely compatible”

h. the relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and

Floodplain management program for that area; “the comprehensive plan calls for this area to be developed as residential and floodplain regulation dictate that property be filled for development”

i. the safety of Access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and

emergency vehicles; “Lincoln street presently exists for access to the site. No additional roads would be required for access”

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 Kansas Department of Agriculture has verbally approved the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study/Stormwater Management Analysis which will not result in increased flood heights above those allow by regulations. The overall raise in the floodplain has been estimated to be 0.6 inches”

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 would be no additional costs for governmental services during and after flooding conditions. All infrastructure is in place for the proposed subdivision”

Agenda October 2012Draft BZA Minutes August 2012Item 3 508 Locust StreetStaff ReportApplicationParking Request VarianceZoning MapPhotoPlanStaff CorrespondenceAdjacent Property Owner and Tenant Permission

Item 4 700 Lincoln StreetStaff ReportFDP Variance ApplZoning Map FEMA FloodplainResponse to Variance Questions for FloodplainPlanFDP

Documents

LAWRENCE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA OCTOBER 4, … · DRAFT Board of Zoning Appeals 8-2-2012 Page 2 of 3 Christie asked if there was a fence on the west side of the property