The Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3‑2 to deny a variance request to reduce the off‑street parking requirement for a proposed multi‑dwelling residential development at 31100 Michigan Street.

Planning staff (Luke) told the board the site is encumbered by FEMA‑mapped regulatory floodplain, a floodplain zoning overlay and a platted drainage easement. Under the current Land Development Code the applicant’s proposed 250 dwelling units would trigger a requirement for 529 off‑street parking spaces; under a new city code anticipated to take effect in early April the requirement for the same number of units would drop to 250 spaces. Staff recommended denial of the variance and noted an administrative alternative: a formal site plan submittal could allow the planning director to consider a parking reduction under Article 6 of the current code.

Applicant representatives — architect Joe Stock of the Prime Company and project owner Chris Elsey — told the board the project is an affordable housing development supported by Kansas Housing Resources Corporation (KHRC) funding. Stock said the project team proposes 323 parking spaces (about 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit), above the new code’s expected minimum but below the current code’s calculated requirement. The applicant explained that waiting for the new code would reduce allowable density on the parcel under the new rules (the team said the new code could limit the site to about 133 units), which would jeopardize the existing funding package and the project’s feasibility.

Why it matters: The decision affects an applicant seeking to deliver 250 affordable units; board members split over whether the timing of an imminent code change and the project’s funding constraints constitute the kind of hardship the variance rules allow.

Board deliberations emphasized three points: (1) staff argued that the presence of floodplain and easements does not make the parcel extraordinarily unique within Lawrence, (2) the variance standard defines unnecessary hardship narrowly and staff concluded the requirement for off‑street parking was not an equal to that threshold, and (3) several board members said the applicant’s circumstances — funding deadlines and a pending code change — created an exceptional, time‑sensitive situation that merited relief. One member stressed the BZA’s role in resolving awkward timing conflicts between applicants and code updates.

After discussion a motion to deny the parking variance carried 3‑2. Staff and applicants were advised that, if the applicant files a formal major site‑plan application, the planning director has discretion under the existing code to administratively reduce off‑street parking; the transcript shows staff encouraged the applicant to pursue that route in parallel.

Technical details from the hearing: staff said accommodating the full 529 spaces would require about 68,500 additional square feet of paving and about 204 additional spaces beyond what the applicant proposed; applicant representatives emphasized efforts to keep development out of regulated floodplain areas and said the proposed 323 spaces exceed the future code minimum while preserving the KHRC funding package.

Next steps: The applicant indicated plans to submit a site plan prior to the code change, and staff said it would follow up with the applicant to explain administrative options and next steps for planning‑director review.