Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves setback variance for vehicle storage at 952 N. Third St.
Summary
The Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 4 approved a variance allowing a proposed vehicle storage building at 952 North Third Street to be sited about 210 feet from the street instead of the 25-foot maximum in the Mixed Corridor (M3) district.
The Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 4 approved a variance allowing the proposed vehicle-storage building at 952 North Third Street to be sited 210 feet back from the public right of way, exceeding the Mixed Corridor (M3) district maximum front setback of 25 feet.
Staff recommended denial, saying the request failed to meet the five variance criteria in the city's Land Development Code and would conflict with the code's intent to pull buildings closer to the street. "Staff recommends denial of this requested variance to increase the maximum front setback for a lot in the Mixed Corridor district," said Luke Mortensen, Planning staff, during the hearing.
The property is an approximately 1.1-acre platted lot on the east side of North Third Street that the staff report said was annexed in two stages and contains three existing buildings constructed in 1978, 1990 and 2007. Mortensen told the board the parcel's multi-stage annexation and lot shape are not itself a unique condition compared with nearby lots that converted automatically to M3 when the city's Land Development Code was adopted in 2024 and took effect April 1, 2025. "The subject property is at the front of that line," Mortensen said, explaining why staff viewed the new standards as generally applicable.
The applicant, represented by Alan Balot, disputed the timing and record of the review. Balot said the project team had submitted site drawings in 2024 and later revised them, and that the parcel already functions largely as paved vehicle storage. "What we have is what we have," Balot said, arguing the variance would simply legalize the existing configuration and allow construction of a building over existing paved area.
Neighbors and nearby landowners raised procedural and practical concerns during public comment, including questions about when a site plan was submitted and whether flood- or stormwater management had been studied. Natalia Lowther, who said she owns farmland east of the site, told the board she monitors stormwater impacts to her property and asked whether stormwater pollution-prevention documentation had been submitted.
Board members split in their reasoning: some said the site's floodplain encumbrance and narrow "piano-key" lot shape supplied unique circumstances supporting a variance, while others emphasized fairness and the lack of a documented 2024 site-plan application in the city's records. After discussion the board voted to approve the setback variance: Palos — aye; Shalinski — yes; Shanuda — yes; Watkins — yes; Peterson — nay; Rankin (chair) — nay. The motion carried.
The board's decision applies only to the setback variance and does not by itself approve any building permit or site-plan revisions required by other city standards, including floodplain management rules and site-plan review.
