Board of Zoning Appeals

AGENDA Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting 5:30 PM - Thursday, November 5, 2020 Council Room Page 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 3.A. Adoption of Minutes 3 - 12 Recommended Motion: Approve the regular meeting minutes, as presented. September 17, 2020 Minutes 4. NEW BUSINESS 4.A. Variance: Lot 10, Gerteis Second Addition 13 - 22 Recommended Motion: Approve a variance to allow vehicular parking on a gravel surface on Lot 10, Gerteis Second Addition, subject to specific conditions. Agenda Item Report - AIR-20-237 - Pdf 4.B. Board of Zoning Appeals Schedule for 2021 23 - 24 Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached schedule of Board of Zoning Appeals meeting and submission dates for the 2021 calendar year. Agenda Item Report - AIR-20-234 - Pdf 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 24 Page 2 of 24  MINUTES Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting 5:30 PM - Thursday, September 17, 2020 Council Room The Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Derby was called to order on Thursday, September 17, 2020, at 5:30 PM, in the Council Room, with the following members present: PRESENT: Chris Voth Patrick Baer Joe Waugh ABSENT: Jessica Rhein Mark Tillison 1 CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2 ROLL CALL 3 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES to approve the regular meeting minutes of August 20, 2020 a) Adoption of Minutes Chris Voth moved, seconded by Joe Waugh, Approve the regular meeting minutes, as presented. RESULT: Carried MOVER: Chris Voth SECONDER: Joe Waugh AYES: Chris Voth, Patrick Baer, and Joe Waugh ABSENT: Jessica Rhein and Mark Tillison 4 NEW BUSINESS a) Variance: Lot 2, Block 17, Springcreek Addition BACKGROUND: General Location: 400 N. Valley Stream Dr. (location map attached) Applicants: Danny and Robin Jakub Reason for Request: • Allow for the construction of a 6 ft. fence within a front yard setback and exceed maximum allowed paved area within a required front yard. Background Information: • The owner of Lot 2, Block 17, Springcreek Addition (400 N. Valley Stream Page 1 of 10 Page 3 of 24  Dr.) has applied for a variance from Articles 303.F.2.c and 500.A.6.a.1 of the Zoning Regulations in order to allow for a construction of a 6 ft. high wood fence in the front yard setback and to exceed the maximum allowed paved area for a driveway within a required front yard. o Article 303.F.2.c prohibits fences from extending beyond the corner of a principal structure into the required front yard. The purpose is to limit encroachments within required front yards and to preserve the open nature of residential neighborhoods. o Article 500.A.6.a.1 restricts the paved area of a driveway to a maximum size of 1,200 sq. ft. or 50% of the required front yard, whichever is less. The purpose is to prevent driveways from dominating a front yard and to preserve open yard space. • The building on the subject property is a detached garage, accessory to 330 N. Valley Stream Dr. which is the applicants' residence. The garage and existing driveway were constructed in 2006. The site consists of two residential lots with the principle structure located on one lot and an accessory structure on the second lot. The two lots are considered a single zoning lot. o In accordance with the R-1 "Single-Family Residential" regulations, the lots were platted with a 25 ft. front yard setback. A 15 ft. utility easement was also platted along the front property line and a 100 ft. KG&E easement passes through the property. An aerial photo identifying the property lines, easements, and front setback is attached. • The applicant is seeking to install a 6 ft. high wood fence from the northwest corner of the existing fence, adjacent to the detached garage, to the south end of the existing retaining wall. The applicant also desires to raise the height of the existing masonry wall to 6 ft. and tie the wood fence to the wall. o The applicant indicates that the request arises from a desire to screen the property from Madison Ave. and improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood. The fence will also have a gate south of the retaining wall to provide access to the secondary driveway on the property. o Photos and a plot plan indicating the desired location of the fence and gate are attached. o The fence is proposed to be within a 15 utility easement and a 100 ft. KG&E easement with overhead transmission lines, which is allowed. o A variance is required to allow a fence to be installed within the front yard setback and past the front corner of the primary structure. o A masonry retaining wall with raised flower bed was constructed at the northwest corner of the property between 2011 and 2014, within the 15 ft. utility easement and 25 ft. front setback. There is no permit on file for this structure. • The applicant has also requested a variance to exceed the maximum allowed paved area within a required front yard, in order to install a paved driveway from the existing north approach to the rear of the detached garage. o The regulations restrict the paved area in the required front yard to the lessor of 1,200 sq. ft. or 50% of the required front yard. o The proposed driveway addition would result in an additional 525 Page 2 of 10 Page 4 of 24  sq. ft. of paving, which combined with the existing 1,162 sq. ft. results in a total of 1,687 sq. ft. of paving in the required front yard. The proposed additional paving would exceed the maximum allowed area of 1,200 sq. ft. by 487 sq. ft. o The required front yard area is 5,300 sq. ft. (212 ft. x 25 ft. = 5,300 sq. ft.). The proposed variance would allow driveways with an aggregate square footage that occupies 32% of the required front yard. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: • The Board is authorized to grant a variance for both a 6 ft. fence in the front yard setback and for a paved driveway to exceed maximum allowed paved area within a required front yard, in accordance with the standards established by State Law and described in Section 1003.C of the Zoning Regulations. • The request for a variance of the Zoning Regulations requires a public hearing: o Notice of the public hearing was published in the Derby Informer on August 26, 2020. o The property is adjacent to the east corporate limits of the City. In accordance with State Law, notice of the public hearing was sent to property owners within 200 ft. within city limits and 1,000 ft. outside the city limits. o A sign advertising the public hearing was posted onsite September 3, 2020. o The certified ownership list is on file at City Hall. • At the time of this writing, staff has received four email responses and one phone call regarding the variance. o Two of the responses indicated opposition to the request, one indicated support, and one was a general inquiry. The emails are attached. The phone call was received from a neighboring property owner who expressed concern that the driveway could potentially cause drainage issues. o Any testimony provided during the public hearing should be considered by the Board in making a determination. • Approval of a variance requires adoption of a resolution. o A draft resolution has been prepared by staff based on the consideration of each finding as presented in this report. The draft resolution is attached. o The Board may instruct staff to modify the resolution as necessary to reflect the findings of the Board. • The decision of the BZA is final and does not require any further action. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: FINDINGS OF FACT • The Board is authorized to grant variances from the terms of the Zoning Regulations in specific cases which will not be contrary to the public interest and where, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provision of the regulations, in an individual case, results in unnecessary hardship, and provided that the spirit of the regulations shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done. Page 3 of 10 Page 5 of 24  • State Law establishes, and Section 1003.C of the Zoning Regulations includes standards for the development of findings of fact which act to support the Board's actions. The Board may grant a variance upon making specific written findings of fact based upon the particular evidence presented to it at the hearing that all the standards required by state law have been met. • The standards which must be considered for a variance are listed below with staff considerations of each of the findings included. Finding A): That the variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in the same zone or district, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owner or the applicant: • The property sits at a bend in Valley Stream Dr., with the primary structure positioned at the southwest corner of the lot. The lot itself is considered one zoning lot along with Lot 3, under the same ownership. The structure on Lot 2 is a large, detached garage, accessory to the primary residential house on Lot 3. o The street alignment and orientation of the house and detached garage on the properties creates a situation where constructing the 6 ft. wood fence at the proposed location would not appear to pass beyond the front corner of the building. o The proposed 6 ft. wood fence would terminate at the south wing of the existing masonry retaining wall. The applicants have also requested to be allowed to increase the height of the existing masonry retaining wall to match the height of the 6 ft. wood fence. ▪ The retaining wall was constructed without a permit and would not typically be allowed in an easement. ▪ Section 901.A.2.b of the zoning regulations allows "an accessory structure that is movable or will not, in the judgement of the Zoning Administrator, significantly obstruct a public or utility easement or effect the maintenance, repair, replacement or reconstruction of a public or utility improvement or installation located within any such easement, including any authorized future use thereof, may be located within or project over such utility easement, improvement or installation; provided that the owner thereof shall post and continuously maintain in a conspicuous place upon such building or structure the following notice: "This structure is located within a public utility easement. Neither the City of Derby nor any utility company entitled to use this easement is liable for damage to or destruction of this structure as a result of maintenance, repair or replacement activities, or installation of new facilities, within this easement." • Staff recommends approving the increase in height conditioned upon the applicant installing and maintaining the required signage. The applicants are advised that the installation and expansion of the wall is entirely at their own risk and the City and utility companies are not liable for damage or destruction that may arise if utilities are maintained, repaired, replaced, or installed in the easement in the future. Page 4 of 10 Page 6 of 24  • The property is approximately 0.6 acres in size and when combined with the adjacent lot, the single zoning lot exceeds 1.0 acre; which is significantly larger than adjacent properties in the subdivision. The lot is also significantly wider than adjacent lots. The regulations pertaining to maximum paved area within a front yard are intended to prevent driveways from dominating a required front yard by limiting the size to 50% of the required front yard's area or a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft., whichever is less. o The property's size limits the driveway's visual dominance and the proposed location provides sufficient space between the existing driveway and the driveway on the property to the north. Allowing the 487 sq. ft. addition would not exceed 50% of the required front yard area. o If the fence variance is approved, the driveway will be screened by the fence and gate, further limiting its visual impact on the property and surrounding area. o Flat work, including driveways and paths, are permitted encroachments into easements. Finding B): That the granting of the permit for the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents: • Staff has received four email responses from property owners within the notification area and one phone call. o Two of the responses indicated opposition to the variance request. One response indicated support. One email was an inquiry regarding how the fence would affect traffic and visibility. The email correspondence is attached to this report. o One phone call was received from a neighboring property owner who expressed concern that the driveway addition could cause drainage issues. o The Board will need to consider any testimony provided during the public hearing. • Granting the variance of the fence in the front yard would normally affect the rights of adjacent property owners by infringing on the line of sight from their required front yard. In this case, the property owner to the north, which would be affected by the fence being within their line-of-sight along Valley Stream Dr., supports the variance. The property to the south is the applicants' residence. The fence will not encroach into any other property's line-of-sight. • Granting the variance of the driveway addition would normally affect the rights of adjacent property owners by creating a required front yard dominated by paving. o In this case the size and width of the lot limits the visual impact of the paving which if approved will only cover 32% of the required front yard. o There is a significant gap between the existing driveway on the subject property and the driveway of 420 N. Valley Stream to the north. A driveway addition will not create visual clutter due to the separation. Many driveways elsewhere on the street are spaced closer than the proposed driveway. Page 5 of 10 Page 7 of 24  o The subject lot's size and the proposed location and size of the driveway will not visually dominate the property nor adjacent properties. o If the variance for the fence is approved, the fence and gate will provide additional screening of the driveway. Finding C): That strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Regulations of which the variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application: • Strict applications of Article 303.F.2.c would require the applicant to install the fence at the 25 ft. setback line. Installing the fence at the 25 ft. setback would not permit the fence to be attached to the existing retaining wall, which would be visually unappealing. • Denying a variance for the driveway addition would constitute a hardship upon the applicants as they would not be able to construct a driveway that connects to the existing approach. • The applicant may choose to provide additional testimony as to why denying the variance shall constitute unnecessary hardship during the public hearing. Finding D): That the variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. • The fence is proposed to encroach into a 15 ft. platted setback along the front property line and within the 100 ft. KG&E transmission line easement. • The proposed fence variance request was forwarded to Evergy, Cox Communications, Kansas Gas Service, and AT&T for comment. o Cox Communications, Kansas Gas Service, and AT&T do not have conflicts or objections to the request. o Evergy requires the applicant to first submit fence plans to their engineering department for review and approval prior to construction. The property owner will be required to sign an Agreement for Encroachment prior to construction. o The 6 ft. wood fence will not adversely affect the utility easement as wood fences are common encroachments into utility easements throughout the City. • Due to the geometrics of the site and the configuration of the home and driveway to the north the proposed fence is not anticipated to create a vision issue resulting in a traffic hazard. The home to the north is constructed with a side load garage and the driveway includes a turn around so the resident does not have to back into the street. • A masonry wall is considered a structure and typically not allowed within a utility easement. As noted above, approval should be conditioned upon the applicants installing and maintaining the required signage. The wall encroachment into the utility easement is at the sole risk of the property owner. • Approving a variance for the driveway addition will not adversely affect public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed driveway will not visually dominate the subject property nor surrounding properties. Finding E): That granting of the variance will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the Zoning Regulations. Page 6 of 10 Page 8 of 24  • Granting the variance for the fence within the required front yard is not generally opposed to the spirit and intent of the regulations. The intent of Article 303.F.2.c is to prevent front yards from being enclosed and maintain the open character of a residential neighborhood. The proposed fence would extend from the existing fence enclosure on a northwest trajectory, connecting to the existing retaining wall at the northwest corner of the property. The curvature of the street and the position of the detached garage creates a situation where the fence does not appear to extend beyond the front corner of the detached garage. • Granting a variance for the driveway addition is not opposed to the general spirit and intent of the regulations. The intent of Article 500.A.C.6.a.1 is to prevent driveways from dominating front yards and to preserve open space within the required front yard. The zoning lot, which consists of two platted lots is significantly larger than other building sites in the area. The addition will remain well below 50% of the required front yard restriction and there is considerable distance between the existing driveways to the north and south. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance to exceed the maximum allowed paved area within the required front yard and a 6 ft. wood fence within the front yard, with the following conditions: • A permit application for the existing retaining wall and raised flower bed shall be submitted concurrently with a permit application for the fence. The wall shall be inspected to ensure compliance with applicable building codes. The wall may be required to be reconstructed or removed if it does not meet applicable building codes. • The applicants shall be responsible for any portions of the fence and retaining wall damaged and/or removed by any installation or maintenance of utilities within the easements and shall shall post and maintain a sign stating: "This structure is located within a public utility easement. Neither the City of Derby nor any utility company entitled to use this easement is liable for damage to or destruction of this structure as a result of maintenance, repair or replacement activities, or installation of new facilities, within this easement." • The fence and driveway shall comply with all other applicable regulations. RECOMMENDED MOTION • Approve a variance to allow a 6 ft. wood fence and masonry wall within the required front yard setback and to exceed the maximum allowed paved area within the required front yard up to a total paved area of 1,700 sq. ft. Everett Haynes, Assistant City Planner, presented the staff report. Joe Waugh, Board Member asked what happens if the City approves of a project one way but the Home Owners Association (HOA) denies the project. Chris Voth, Board Member asked if the HOA can be more strict than the City. Scott Knebel, City Planner responded that HOA's are separate entities from the City and have their own rules and guidelines for their neighborhoods. While an HOA can be more strict, they can not be less strict than the City regulations and Page 7 of 10 Page 9 of 24 codes. Board Members conducted a general discussion amonst themselves weighing the merits of the two requests and whether or not a hardship exists that wasn't created by the applicants. Patrick Baer, Board Member stated his opinion is that the motion should be split to address the items separately. Waugh asked what Evergy requires since there is a landscaping wall and berm already encroaching in the utility easement. Haynes replied that Evergy is requiring the applicant to submit fence plans to their engineering department for review and approval prior to construction. The applicant will also be required to sign an encroachment agreement. Baer stated that in past cases the board considered and approved putting a fence at the 15' setback line and feels that it could apply in this situation also. Waugh confirmed his agreement with the 15' setback. Voth confirmed his agreement with the 15' fence setback. Patrick Baer moved, seconded by Chris Voth, The Board does hereby grant Applicant the requested variance applying relief from Article 3, subsection 303.F.2.c and Article 5, subsection 500.A.6.a.1 of the City’s zoning regulations by permitting a 6 ft. high wood fence and a 6 ft. high masonry wall to be located within the front yard setback but no closer to the front property line than 15 ft. and by permitting a driveway to exceed the maximum allowed paved area within the front yard for a total square footage not to exceed 1,700 sq. ft. on Lot 2, Block 17, Springcreek Addition, contingent upon the performance and observance of the following conditions: 1.A fence permit application shall be submitted within 180 days of the granting of the variance for the 6 ft. high wood fence and a 6 ft. high masonry wall to be located within the front yard setback but no closer to the front property line than 15 ft. The fence and wall shall comply with all other applicable codes and shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the fence permit. 2.The applicants shall be solely responsible for any portions of the existing retaining wall damaged and/or removed by any installation or maintenance of utilities or use within the easements where the existing wall is located and shall post and maintain a sign on the structure stating: "This structure is located within a public utility easement. Neither the City of Derby nor any utility company entitled to use this easement is liable for damage to or destruction of this structure as a result of maintenance, repair or replacement activities, or installation of new facilities, within this easement." 3.The variance shall comply with all other applicable zoning and building code requirements of the City. Section 2.Period of Validity. The variance shall lapse and become ineffective after March 16, 2021, if the conditions of Section 1 herein are not met unless an extension is granted by the Board. The Zoning Administrator may declare the variance null and void upon a written determination that the site is not continuously maintained in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 herein. Such declaration may be appealed to the Board within Page 8 of 10 Page 10 of 24  30 days of issuance RESULT: Carried MOVER: Patrick Baer SECONDER: Chris Voth AYES: Chris Voth and Patrick Baer NAYS: Joe Waugh ABSENT: Jessica Rhein and Mark Tillison b) Board of Zoning Appeals Bylaws Amendments BACKGROUND: • The Bylaws of the Board of Zoning Appeals were last amended in 2012. • Several changes to City Code, administrative procedures, and practices of the Board have made portions of the Bylaws out of date. • Recommended amendments to the Bylaws are attached. o One attachment is red lined to show the recommended changes. o The other attachment is a clean copy as the Bylaws would appear if all the recommended amendments are accepted. • The substantive amendments to the Bylaws are summarized in the Policy Implications section. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: • The Board may, by a majority vote of the total membership, amend the Bylaws upon receipt of the proposed amendments at least seven days prior to the meeting. • Amendments to the Board of Zoning Appeals Bylaws also requires approval by the City Council. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: • Section 2 includes provisions regarding the disqualification of members for non-attendance that is contrary to City Code. o The recommended amendment will remove role of the Board in determining whether or not member absences are justified. o When a member is absent for two consecutive meetings or for more than three meetings in a calendar year, the Secretary will notify the City Manager of the non-attendance, and the City Council may chose to remove the member. • Section 3, Section 12, and Section 16 are recommended to be modified for consistency with the City's Code of Meeting Procedure regarding conflicts of interest. • Section 8B requires that meetings be open to the public. It is recommended to be modified to allow the Board to establish procedures for remote participation to address situations like the COVID-19 pandemic. Remote participation also is reflected in Section 15 regarding appearance before the Board. • Section 10 requires the "Presiding Officer" to direct preparation of the agenda and deliver copies to the Board. It is recommended to be modified to reflect the current practice of posting agendas on the City's website. • Section 13 is recommended to be modified to reflect the current practice for the order of business. Page 9 of 10 Page 11 of 24  • Section 14 is recommended to be modified to reflect that decisions of the Board are final and are not forwarded to the City Council for further action. • Section 18 is recommended to be modified to establish times limits for speakers. The absence of written time limits could lead to a due process challenge. RECOMMENDED MOTION • Adopt a resolution to amend the Bylaws of the Board of Zoning Appeals and recommend that the City Council approve the amended Bylaws. Chris Voth moved, seconded by Joe Waugh, Adopt a resolution to amend the Bylaws of the Board of Zoning Appeals and recommend that the City Council approve the amended Bylaws. RESULT: Carried MOVER: Chris Voth SECONDER: Joe Waugh AYES: Chris Voth, Patrick Baer, and Joe Waugh ABSENT: Jessica Rhein and Mark Tillison 5 ANNOUNCEMENTS 6 ADJOURNMENT RECOMMENDED MOTION to adjourn at 6:45 p.m. Joe Waugh moved, seconded by Chris Voth, to adjourn at 6:45 p.m. RESULT: Carried MOVER: Joe Waugh SECONDER: Chris Voth AYES: Chris Voth, Patrick Baer, and Joe Waugh ABSENT: Jessica Rhein and Mark Tillison Stephanie Cox, Recording Secretary Patrick Baer, Vice Chairperson Page 10 of 10 Page 12 of 24 New Business Item Subject: Variance: Lot 10, Gerteis Second Addition Meeting: Board of Zoning Appeals - 05 Nov 2020 Presented by: Everett Haynes, Assistant City Planner BACKGROUND: General Location: 120 N. Westview Dr. (location map attached) Applicants: Unified School District #260 Reason for Request: • Allow vehicle parking on a gravel surface. (Article 500.A.6.b.3) Background Information: • As part of the USD 260 bond issue, the Transportation Facility is undergoing site improvements which include an addition to the building, refacing the building facades, parking lot improvements and expansion, landscaping, and a pedestrian sidewalk along Market St. o The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the site plans for the site improvements August 20, 2020, contingent on the required onsite parking being satisfied. o The majority of the improvements are focused on the west half of the site. The east half, separated by an existing retaining wall, will largely remain in its existing condition. The east half is currently a gravel parking lot with two accessory, maintenance buildings. • Required parking was reviewed as part of the site plan review. Since the Zoning Regulations do not have a specific parking requirement for a school transportation facility, required parking was calculated based on the parking requirements for express, parcel delivery, and freight terminal establishments. One parking space is required per employee plus one space per delivery vehicle. The transportation facility is required to provide 79 employee parking spaces and 53 parking spaces for buses and vehicles maintained onsite, for a total of 132 parking spaces. o The west half of the parking area will accommodate 60 regular parking stalls and 35 bus stalls. In order to meet the parking requirements, the east half must accommodate the remaining 19 regular parking stalls and 18 bus/van parking stalls. • Article 500.A.6.b.3 of the Zoning Regulations requires all off-street parking lots and loading areas serving commercial and institutional uses to be surfaced with poured in place concrete, asphaltic concrete or other comparable materials approved by the Zoning Administrator. o The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the existing parking on the gravel surfaces to continue in order to meet the minimum parking requirements. A site plan is attached with the gravel parking area identified in red. o If the variance is approved, the site will be able to accommodate the required onsite parking as required at site plan review. Page 13 of 24 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: • The Board is authorized to grant a variance to allow for parking areas on a gravel surface, in accordance with the standards established by state law and described in Section 1003.C of the Zoning Regulations. • The request for a variance of the Zoning Regulations requires a public hearing: o Notice of the public hearing was published in the Derby Informer on October 14, 2020. o In accordance with Kansas law, notice of the public hearing was sent to property owners within 200 ft. of the subject property on October 14, 2020. o A sign advertising the public hearing was posted onsite on October 26, 2020. o The certified ownership list is on file at City Hall. • At the time of this writing, staff has not received any responses nor inquiries regarding the variance. o Any testimony provided during the public hearing should be considered by the Board in making a determination. • Approval of a variance requires adoption of a resolution. o A draft resolution has been prepared by staff based on the consideration of each finding as presented in this report. The draft resolution is attached. o The Board may instruct staff to modify the resolution as necessary to reflect the findings of the Board. • The decision of the BZA is final and does not require any further action. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: FINDINGS OF FACT • The Board is authorized to grant variances from the terms of the Zoning Regulations in specific cases which will not be contrary to the public interest and where, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provision of the regulations, in an individual case, results in unnecessary hardship, and provided that the spirit of the regulations shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done. • State law establishes, and Section 1003.C of the Zoning Regulations includes standards for the development of findings of fact which act to support the Board's actions. The Board may grant a variance upon making specific written findings of fact based upon the particular evidence presented to it at the hearing that all the standards required by state law have been met. • The standards which must be considered for a variance are listed below with staff considerations of each of the findings included. Finding A): That the variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in the same zone or district, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owner or the applicant: • Parking on gravel surfaces is an existing onsite condition. A timeline of when the existing gravel parking lot was created cannot be definitively established, but available historical aerial imagery shows the gravel parking lot existing in 1996. Off-street parking has been required to be paved with concrete and/or asphalt since 1975. There is no record of a permit being issued for construction of the gravel parking lot. • The existing gravel parking area has been active for almost 25 years without a violation being issued or any complaints being received. • Granting a variance would bring the property into conformance as a legal nonconforming use. Finding B): That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents: Page 14 of 24  • Granting a variance to allow parking on the existing gravel surface is not expected to adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners because it is an existing condition that has existed at the location for nearly 25 years. New gravel lots would not be permitted and would be required to be paved in accordance with Article 500.A.6.b.3. • Staff has not received any inquiries or comments regarding the variance. o The Board will need to consider any testimony provided during the public hearing. Finding C): That strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Regulations of which the variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application: • Denying the variance would require the parking area to be paved or require a separate variance for off-site parking despite the lengthy history of onsite gravel parking. • The applicant has indicated that the school district does not have the funds to pave additional parking and must utilize the existing gravel surface in order to meet the minimum parking required at site plan review. Finding D): That the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. • Granting the variance is not expected to adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. There is considerable distance (over 350 ft.) from the gravel parking area to the nearest residences. Dust that may be blown from the site should have a minimal affect on adjacent properties. o There are no records of complaints or concerns regarding dust and/or debris associated with the existing gravel parking area. o The gravel parking area is required to be kept free of debris and vegetation in accordance with the remaining provisions of Article 500.A.6.b.3. o The site is fenced and difficult for the general public to access, minimizing any safety concerns that may be caused by a gravel parking surface. Finding E): That granting of the variance will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the Zoning Regulations. • Granting the variance is not opposed to the general spirit and intent of the Zoning Regulations. One of the stated purposes of the Zoning Regulations is to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation. The improvements to the transportation facility will aid the transportation of students to school. • The applicant has indicated that the gravel parking areas will be striped to provide clear indication of parking stalls, further bringing the area into compliance and meeting the intent of the parking regulations. • Approving the variance would allow the nonconformity to continue as a legal use, and help bring the site into compliance with current regulations. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow for a parking area on a gravel surface, with the following conditions: • Wheel stops shall be required to denote parking spaces and prevent vehicles from overhanging into lawn spaces. • The gravel parking areas shall be kept clear of weeds, dust, waste, and debris in accordance with Article 500.A.6.b.3 of the Zoning Regulations. • No additional parking areas shall be constructed without a permit. Any additional parking constructed shall be in accordance with Article 500.A.6.b.3 of the regulations. The variance only applies to the existing gravel parking areas on the east portion of the site. Page 15 of 24 RECOMMENDED MOTION: • Approve a variance to allow vehicular parking on a gravel surface on Lot 10, Gerteis Second Addition, subject to specific conditions. ATTACHMENTS: Location Map Site Plan Applicant's Narrative Draft Resolution BZA2020VAR08 Page 16 of 24  Variance 120 N. Westview Dr. USD 260 Transportation Facility USD 260 Athletic Complex Derby USD 260 Historical Central Society & Kitchen Hubbard Center Subject Site Derby Transportation Recreation Facility Commission 120 N. Westview El Paso Cemetery Page 17 of 24  = POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL PARKING LOCATIONS Page 18 of 24 Derby Public Schools Transportation Facility: The existing parking lot will be reconfigured and expanded to provide more efficient circulation and access. The existing parking rows northeast of the building will be removed and replaced with parking along the periphery. Additional parking is proposed along the south property line. o Minimum parking standards are calculated based on the proposed use of a site. The regulations do not provide parking requirements specifically for public school transportation facilities. The uses that most closely resemble the transportation facility are cartage, express, parcel delivery, and freight terminal establishments. These establishments are required to provide one space per employee plus one space per delivery vehicle. The transportation facility has 79 employees (10 full- time, 18 part-time, 51 drivers) with 53 buses and vehicles maintained onsite; thus 132 parking spaces are required. 60 regular parking stalls and 35 bus stalls are proposed, for a total of 95 parking stalls on the West portion of the site. The East portion contains 29 bus and van parking spaces. The entire property contains 124 parking stalls. o The existing adjacent property to the East is currently additional parking for this facility. Parking lot is gravel with current parking and possible additional parking locations shown on the attached plan. Page 19 of 24  Passed 11/05/2020 RESOLUTION NO. BZA2020VAR08 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE CITY OF DERBY, KANSAS FINDING THE ADVISABILITY OF, AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 5, SUBSECTION 500.A.6.b.3 OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS ON LOT 10, GERTEIS SECOND ADDITION, DERBY, SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS. WHEREAS, pursuant to authority granted by K.S.A. 12-759 et seq., the City of Derby, Kansas (“City”) has adopted zoning regulations which include provisions for the granting of variances and exceptions; and WHEREAS, the City’s zoning regulations provide the City’s Board of Zoning Appeals (“Board”) authority to hear and decide upon applications for variances from the specific terms of the zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, Unified School District 260 (“Applicant”), has applied for a variance seeking relief from application of Article 5, subsection 500.A.6.b.3 of the City’s zoning regulations in order to grant a variance to allow vehicular parking on an existing gravel surface, for property described as: Lot 10, Gerteis Second Addition and commonly known as 120 N. Westview Dr.; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2020, and in compliance with K.S.A. 12-759 et seq., the Board held the required public hearing to consider the above-described application for relief from strict application of Article 5, subsection 500.A.6.b.3 of the City’s zoning regulations; and NOW, THEREFORE, having heard all persons interested in such application and being fully advised in the premises, the Board makes the following specific findings based upon standards provided in K.S.A.12-759 and subsection 1003.C of the zoning regulations: a) The situation which is cause for the requested variance is unique to the property in question. Vehicular parking on gravel surfaces is an existing onsite condition and has been active for approximately 25 years without a violation being issued. Granting of the variance brings the property into conformance as a legal nonconforming use. b) Granting the requested variance to allow vehicular parking on a gravel surface is not expected to adversely affect the rights of adjacent owners or residents since it is an existing condition and new gravel parking areas are not permitted. c) Strict application of the provisions of the zoning regulation from which the variance is requested would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the property owner. Page 20 of 24  d) Granting a variance to allow vehicular parking on gravel surfaces will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity or general welfare. e) Granting a variance to allow vehicular parking on a gravel surface will not violate the general spirit and intent of the City’s zoning regulations. One of the stated purposes of the regulations is to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation. The improvements to the school district’s transportation facility will aid the transportation of students to and from school facilities. The gravel parking area is required to meet the minimum off-street parking required for the transportation facility. The gravel parking area will also be striped to provide clear indication of parking stalls in compliance with the regulations. WHEREAS, the Board has authority to attach conditions upon the premises and/or the applicant benefitted by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards of subsection 1003.C of the zoning regulations, to reduce or minimize any potentially injurious effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, and/or to carry out the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Derby, Kansas, that: Section 1. Grant. The Board does hereby grant Applicant the requested variance applying relief from Article 5, subsection 500.A.6.b.3 of the City’s zoning regulations by permitting vehicular parking on the existing gravel on Lot 10, Gerteis Second Addition, contingent upon the performance and observance of the following conditions: 1. A building permit shall be submitted within 180 days of the granting of the variance for the onsite improvements. 2. Wheel stops and striping shall be required to denote parking spaces and prevent vehicles from overhanging into lawn spaces. 3. The gravel parking areas shall be kept clear of weeds, dust, waste, and debris in accordance with 500.A.6.b.3. 4. No additional parking areas shall be constructed without a permit. Additions shall be in accordance with Article 500.A.6.b.3. This variance only applies to the existing gravel parking areas on the east portion of the site. Section 2. Period of Validity. The variance shall lapse and become ineffective after May 4, 2021, if the conditions of Section 1 herein are not met unless an extension is granted by the Board. The Zoning Administrator may declare the variance null and void upon a written determination that the site is not continuously maintained in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 herein. Such declaration may be appealed to the Board within 30 days of issuance. Section 3. Severability. Should any section, clause, sentence or phrase of this resolution be found to be unconstitutional or is otherwise held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of any remaining provisions herein. 2 Page 21 of 24  Section 4. This resolution shall be effective from and after its adoption. PASSED by the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Derby, Kansas this 5th day of November, 2020, and SIGNED by the Chairman. Jessica Rhein, Chairperson Attest: Scott Knebel, Secretary 3 Page 22 of 24 New Business Item Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Schedule for 2021 Meeting: Board of Zoning Appeals - 05 Nov 2020 Presented by: Scott Knebel, City Planner BACKGROUND: • The Board of Zoning Appeals by-laws provides for meetings to be held pursuant to a schedule established by the Board. • Identifying and publishing meeting dates and deadlines assists applicants in preparing project schedules. • The attached schedule establishes meeting dates as the first and third Thursday of each month at 5:30 p.m. • Submission deadlines are established to allow sufficient time to provide notice for public hearings, for staff review, and to prepare and distribute agenda reports and packets to the Board. o Where submission deadlines fall on a Monday on which City Hall is closed for a holiday, submissions are due the following Tuesday. Such occurrences are highlighted on the attached meeting and submission deadline schedule. • If no applications are submitted by the due date, the meeting will be canceled. RECOMMENDED MOTION: • Adopt the attached schedule of Board of Zoning Appeals meeting and submission dates for the 2021 calendar year. ATTACHMENTS: Board of Zoning Appeals Schedule for 2021 Page 23 of 24  CITY OF DERBY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETINGS AND SUBMISSION DATES 2021 CALENDAR BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING DATE SUBMISSION CLOSING DATE (5:30 pm Thursday) (Monday by 5:00 pm) January 7, 2021 November 23, 2020 January 21, 2021 December 7, 2020 February 4, 2021 December 21, 2020 February 18, 2021 January 4, 2021 March 4, 2021 January 19, 2021 March 18, 2021 February 1, 2021 April 1, 2021 February 16, 2021 April 15, 2021 March 1, 2021 May 6, 2021 March 22, 2021 May 20, 2021 April 5, 2021 June 3, 2021 April 19, 2021 June 17, 2021 May 3, 2021 July 1, 2021 May 17, 2021 July 15, 2021 June 1, 2021 August 5, 2021 June 22, 2021 August 19, 2021 July 6,2021 September 2, 2021 July 19, 2021 September 16, 2021 August 2, 2021 October 7, 2021 August 23, 2021 October 21, 2021 September 7, 2021 November 4, 2021 September 20, 2021 November 18, 2021 October 4, 2021 December 2, 2021 October 18, 2021 December 16, 2021 November 1, 2021 January 6, 2022 November 22, 2021 = Modified Date due to Holiday Approved 11/05/2020 Page 24 of 24