Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Aldi setback variance for 566 George Williams Way, cites intent of new code
Summary
Lawrence's Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously denied a request by an Aldi developer to increase a maximum street-side building setback from 25 feet to 220 feet at 566 George Williams Way, with staff arguing the request conflicts with the Mixed Corridor District's intent; staff advised the applicant on an administrative planning director waiver as an alternative.
The Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals voted 5–0 on May 7 to deny a variance request that would have increased the maximum street-side building setback for a proposed Aldi at 566 George Williams Way from 25 feet to 220 feet.
Planner Luke Mortensen presented staff analysis and recommended denial, concluding the request did not meet the five variance criteria. "Staff does not believe that the request satisfies all 5 criteria required to obtain a variance," Mortensen said, noting that the variance would grant increased development rights and run counter to the Mixed Corridor District's intent to pull buildings closer to the public right of way and reduce expanses of surface parking.
Applicant representative Corby Rust of Land Plan Engineering argued the site has unique, constraining conditions — steep grades (as much as a 3:1 slope), bedrock, a 22-foot-wide public utility easement with a water main, and limited access points that complicate large-truck circulation and stormwater detention. "Denial of this variance places the freight dock at the main entrance to the development, and the truck traffic conflicts with both auto traffic and pedestrians," Rust said, explaining that the proposed configuration would place the most attractive face of the building toward West 6th Street and would allow a more logical location for detention and truck access.
Board members questioned whether the site’s geotechnical and stormwater constraints constituted the kind of uniqueness the variance process is intended to remedy. Several members said they understood the applicant's slope and access concerns but noted that similar constraints exist at other properties along West 6th Street and that the new land development code was adopted to achieve a more walkable, building-forward corridor. Mortensen told the board the applicant could still pursue a special use permit/site-plan submission and request a planning director waiver during that process as an administrative alternative to a full variance.
Committee member (speaker 5) moved to deny the application on the basis that it failed to meet the required criteria and conflicted with the spirit and intent of the land development code; the motion was seconded and passed 5–0.
