Board of Zoning Appeals

HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AGENDA CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1507 MAIN, HAYS, KS MAY 13, 2015 8:15 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN. 2. CONSENT AGENDA. A. Minutes of the regular meeting of April 8, 2015 Action: Consider approving the minutes of the April 8, 2015 meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. – None 4. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. A. Consider setting a public hearing for a request from Steven R. Mongeau of Rooks County Holdings LLC and Vigneshvarai, LLC for an exception for a special use permit to permit the conversion of the motel to studio apartments allowed per Section 71-504 (18) within the “C-2” General Commercial and Service Zoning District with the issuance of a special use permit for the property at 810 E 8th Street. (Case #03-15) Action: Consider setting a public hearing for an exception for a special use permit to permit the conversion of the motel to studio apartments at 810 E 8th Street. B. Consider setting a public hearing for a request from Robert J Wickham for a four foot three inch (4’ 3”) variance to reduce the west side yard building setback from the required seven foot three inch (7’ 3”) to three foot (3’) to construct an 18’ x 18’ shed at 1308 W 44th Street. (Case #04-15) Action: Consider setting a public hearing for a setback variance request to construct a detached shed at 1308 W 44th Street. C. Consider setting a public hearing for a request from Jerome Rome for a seven foot (7’) variance to reduce the south side yard building setback from the required ten feet (10’) to three feet (3’) to construct a 30’ X 30’ detached garage at 2916 Barclay Dr. (Case # 05-15) Action: Consider setting a public hearing for a setback variance request to construct a detached garage at 2916 Barclay Dr. D. Consider setting a public hearing for a request from Alaina Hughes for a twenty-one foot (21’) variance to reduce the front yard building setback from the required twenty-five feet (25’) to four feet (4’) to construct a carport at 508 E 17th Street. (Case # 06-15) Action: Consider setting a public hearing for a setback variance request to construct a carport at 508 E 17th Street. 5. OFF AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS. A. Update on the Zoning Regulations Rewrite 6. ADJOURNMENT. Any person with a disability and needing special accommodations to attend this meeting should contact the Planning, Inspection and Enforcement office (785-628-7310) 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.  DRAFT HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMISSION CHAMBERS IN CITY HALL MINUTES APRIL 8, 2015 8:15 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Hays Area Board of Zoning Appeals met on Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:15 a.m. in Commission Chambers at City Hall. Chairman Lou Caplan declared a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Roll Call: Present: Lou Caplan Jerry Sonntag Gerald Befort Tom Lippert Shane Pruitt City Staff Present: I. D. Creech, Director of Public Works, Jesse Rohr, Superintendent and Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant of Planning, Inspection and Enforcement. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: A. MINUTES: The minutes from the March 11, 2015 meeting were approved by consensus. There were no corrections or additions to those minutes. Vote: Ayes: Lou Caplan Jerry Sonntag Gerald Befort Tom Lippert Shane Pruitt Correction on Agenda: Jesse Rohr pointed out to the board that there was a correction on the agenda for April 8, 2015. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. CASE # 02-15 – PUBLIC HEARING FROM LEO ELMS REQUESTING A ONE AND NINE TENTHS FOOT (1.9’) VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SOUTH SIDE YARD BUILDING (ALLEY) SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED SEVEN FEET (7’) TO FIVE AND ONE TENTH FOOT (5.1’) TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AT 2303 PLUM. Jesse Rohr presented the information and site of the proposed detached garage on the overhead visual. The site is at Pershing Court and Plum Street. He showed pictures of all sides of the home and pointed out the location of the proposed garage. 1 The request is for a lesser variance than what was originally submitted. The original submission presented two options with a survey for each, which was discussed with the Board of Zoning at the meeting where they set the public hearing that resulted in a compromise for a lesser variance at the meeting. He explained that notification of this variance request had been mailed to the abutting property owners as required. Lou Caplan asked if there will be a driveway parallel to the house. Mr. Elms answered that there would be a driveway parallel to the house. Lou Caplan asked if there could be an issue with water run off into the alley. Jesse Rohr answered that they will watch that aspect of it during construction and address it from the beginning. Jerry Sonntag moved, Gerald Befort seconded the motion to approve the one and nine tenths foot (1.9’) variance to reduce the south side yard (alley) building setback from the required seven Feet (7’) to five and one tenths feet (5.1’) to construct a detached garage as proposed based on the consideration that the five statutory requirements have been met. Vote: Ayes: Lou Caplan Jerry Sonntag Gerald Befort Tom Lippert Shane Pruitt 4. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: - None 5. OFF-AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS: A. Update on the Zoning Regulations Rewrite: Jesse Rohr gave an update and schedule on the rewrite of the zoning and subdivision regulations. He explained that the City is in receipt of Module 3 of the rewrite of the zoning and subdivision regulations. The board will be invited to the May 20, 2015 Planning Commission Meetings and other meetings that may take place that day. The module 3 covers “Parking, Signage, landscaping, stormwater, and floodplain. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Lou Caplan adjourned the meeting at 8:22 a.m. Submitted by: Linda K. Bixenman, Administrative Assistant, Planning, Inspection and Enforcement 2  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Exception Application #3-15 ADDRESS: 810 E. 8th St OWNER: Rooks County Holdings, LLC TYPE OF REVIEW: Exception – Special Use PRESENTED BY: Jesse Rohr, P.I.E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: May 4, 2015 AGENDA DATE: May 13, 2015 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow an existing motel (commercially zoned property) to be converted and utilized for multi-family dwelling units. After taking into consideration all known factors, staff recommends moving this request forward for a public hearing with a recommendation to approve the special use permit, as long as any and all applicable conditions are met (as further detailed below). BACKGROUND:  The applicant is requesting a special use permit as allowed in Section 71- 504(18) of the Zoning Regulations to allow for a commercially zoned property to be utilized for multi-family dwelling units.  The property is zoned C-2, General Commercial and Service District  All multi-family dwellings located within a C-2 zoning district require a special use permit from the BZA.  This particular property has been showing a lack of maintenance over the past several years and does contain some long term tenants. STANDARDS OF EVALUATION: Per State Statute 12-759 (e) and City Ordinance Sec. 71-1250 (3) In taking into consideration applications for a special use permit, the BZA shall give consideration to the comprehensive zoning plan, the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the community, including, but not limited to, the following factors (particularly the bolded factors):  The stability and integrity of the various zoning districts  Conservation of property values  Protection against fire and casualties  Observation of general police regulations  Prevention of traffic congestion  Promotion of traffic safety and the orderly parking of motor vehicles  Promotion of the safety of individuals and property  Provision for adequate light and air  Prevention of overcrowding and excessive intensity of land uses  Provision for public utilities  Invasion by inappropriate uses  Value, type and character of existing or authorized improvements and land use  Encouragement of improvements and land uses in keeping with overall planning  Provision for orderly and proper urban renewal, development and growth By ordinance, the BZA does have the authority to impose certain restrictions, conditions, terms, time limitations, landscaping, and other appropriate safeguards to protect adjoining property. STAFF ANALYSIS: In evaluating this request, staff considered not only the existing neighborhood, but also the comprehensive plan, the considerations of the new zoning regulations currently being drafted, and the highest and best uses for the property. The Comprehensive plan considers this area as “Commercial” uses. This particular area contains a mix of various uses including retail sales, convenience store, restaurants, and clubs. This request is likely a good example of infill development – utilizing an existing commercial facility that no longer can function as a motel to provide, in this case, a housing need for the community. Staff feels that the request is reasonable and will not have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood or surrounding uses. The area is well laid out for apartment housing. The applicant desires to remodel the motel rooms into studio-type apartments and has provided examples of several other facilities in other near-by towns where similar  Page 2 work was done. Parking will be provided per regulation as shown on the site drawing provided. All City utilities are already in place to serve this particular project. All other regulations, such as landscaping, stormwater management, building and fire code, etc. will need to be met prior to the applicant getting a building permit for this project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to move this request forward for a public hearing with a recommendation to approve the application for a special use permit due to several factors including conservation of adjacent property values, no known invasion of inappropriate uses, provision for orderly and proper urban renewal, development and growth and encouragement of uses of existing facilities. ATTACHMENTS:  Exception application  Pictures and site maps  Statement of justification and site drawings from owner  Page 3 810 Vine St. http://www.geodataportal.net/aspnet_client/ESRI/WebADF/PrintTaskLa... 810 E 8th St. 1 of 1 5/8/2015 9:20 AM 810 Vine St. http://www.geodataportal.net/aspnet_client/ESRI/WebADF/PrintTaskLa... Subject Property 1 of 1 5/8/2015 9:15 AM  Rooks County Holdings, LLC P.O. Box 513 Stockton, KS 67669 Quality Housing for Western Kansas Glendale, CA STATEMENT LETTER 04.062015 TO: Hays Area Board of Zoning Appeals FROM: Steven R. Mongeau, Owner of Rooks County Holdings, LLC RE: 810 E. 8th Street; Hays, KS 67601 On behalf of Rooks County Holdings, LLC & Market Experts Management Corporation, we are pleased to make the Application for Exception for the above‐referenced property for the conversion from a motel transient occupancy use to a multi‐family mixed use. There are no changes being made to the circulation of the site, nor will there be any increase in square footage. The project consists of a remodel to each of the existing motel rooms (finishes & kitchenettes), removal of the pool for a future recreation area, updated landscaping with drought tolerant plants, exterior façade improvements,& changes to the existing legal nonconforming signage (under separate permit). We would also like to request that the existing office space with drive‐thru, as well as Rooms 128‐138 (facing Vine Street) be available for office/retail uses. In consideration for the application, we would ask the board to consider the following factors: 1. The stability & integrity of the various zoning districts: The multi‐family mixed use is allowed in the commercial zoning of the property. The multi‐family use is a better use of the property as motels so far from the junction of I‐70 are no longer viable. 2. Conservation of Property Values: The new multi‐family use will revitalize the southwest corner of 8th & Vine, acting as a catalyst for nearby properties. 3. Protection against fire & casualties: The property is divided into six separate buildings, all with adequate ingress, egress, & circulation. All units will have fire alarm as required by the City & for insurance coverage. 4. Observation of general police regulations: Rooks County Holdings will be responsible for the ongoing management of the project. They have extensive experience in property management; over the course of the last year, they have purchased, renovated, & stabilized 6 apartment/motel properties in Stockton. We look forward to a healthy relationship with the City of Hays & its Police Department. 5. Prevention of traffic congestion: The proposed multi‐family use will generate less vehicle trips than a motel use. In addition, it is expected that a number of occupants will not have vehicles. 6. Promotion of traffic safety & the orderly parking of motor vehicles: There are no proposed changes to building footprints or circulation. The proposed multi‐family use will generate less vehicle trips than a motel use. In addition, it is expected that a number of occupants will not have vehicles. 7. Promotion of the safety of individuals & property: Rooks County Holdings will be responsible for the ongoing management of the project. They have extensive experience in property management. Applications for tenancy are adequately scrutinized to ensure there are responsible tenants. Inspections are made to all units on a regular basis. Any potential illegal activity is immediately reported to the appropriate authorities. 8. Provision of adequate light & air: There are no changes being made to the building footprints, & all windows/lighting are being maintained. The preexisting layout of 6 buildings provides for an adequate amount of pedestrian circulation, air, & light. The recreation area will provide a welcomed amenity for open space. 9. Prevention of overcrowding Y& excessive intensity of land uses: The multi‐family use is significantly less intensive than a motel use. As many as 6 occupants are allowed in a single motel room. Most of the studio apartments will have 1 occupant (a maximum of 2). 10. Provision of public utilities: There are no proposed changes to public utilities. Because of removal of the pool, installation of drought tolerant plants, & more efficient electrical appliances/lighting, the proposed use will result in less utility consumption. 11. Invasion by inappropriate uses: the proposed use will enhance the neighboring properties. 12. Value, type, & character of existing or authorized improvements & land use: The current use as a motel is no longer viable; without a change, it will result in blight to the greater community. The proposed uses as multi‐family will revitalize the property/neighborhood & provided much needed quality affordable housing for the greater community. 13. Encouragement of improvements & land uses in keeping with overall planning: The adaptive re‐use of the property from motel to a multi‐family use will result in higher property values & as a catalyst to revitalizing nearby properties. 14. Provision for orderly & proper urban renewal, development, & growth: The adaptive re‐ use of the property from motel to a multi‐family use will result in higher property values & as a catalyst to revitalizing nearby properties. It also provides much needed quality affordable housing to the greater community.  8TH STREET ENTRANCE ENTRANCE EXIT 2 EXISTING PARKING OFFICE SPACE STALLS TO BE 10 OFFICE/RETIAL 2 ROOMS WITH DRIVE ROOMS THRU. 16 PARKING DROUGHT STALLS TOLERANT VEGETATION. FUTURE 9 RECREATION ROOMS AREA. POOL 8 PARKING TO BE 23 STALLS REMOVED PARKING STALLS POTENTIAL 11 11 OFFICE ROOMS ROOMS SPACE 3 PARKING 8 STALLS ROOMS EXIT EXIT 8 PARKING STALLS ENTRANCE 7TH STREET NOTES: 1. ALL LEGAL NONCONFORMING SIGNAGE SHALL REMAIN. SIGNAGE TO BE UPDATED IN SEPARATE PERMIT. 2. ALL EXTERIOR FINISHES WILL BE UPDATED IN PHASES. 1 SITE PLAN 3. ALL ROOMS ARE NOT CHANGING IN FOOT PRINT. 1"=20' 4. UPDATING FINISHES AND ADDING KITCHENETTES TO ALL ROOMS. 0 20' 7 APR 2015 T 316.267.4002 www.sptarchitecture.com ACCENT PAINT FIELD PAINT DOOR PAINT 8TH & VINE STREET STUDIOS ‐ EXTERIOR  FIELD PAINT KITCHEN FAUCET FLOORING: 1ST FLOOR ‐ WOOD LAMINATE 2ND FLOOR – CARPET MATERIALS ARE BEING PURCHASED THRU HEARTLAND BUILDING CENTER. BATH FAUCETS CABINETS COUNTERTOPS 8TH & VINE STREET STUDIOS ‐ INTERIOR  BED ROOM BATH LIVING KITCHENETTE LIVING ROOM KITCHEN BATH 1 1 BEDROOM APT. 3/16"=1'-0" 2 EFFICENCY APT. 3/16"=1'-0" 0 4' 0 4' 7 MAY 2015 T 316.267.4002 www.sptarchitecture.com  MIC STOVE FRIDGE 1 KITCHENETT 3/8"=1'-0" 0 2' 7 MAY 2015 T 316.267.4002 www.sptarchitecture.com  PAINT EXISTING FENCE NEW SHADE STRUCTURES NEW WATER FOUNTAIN PLANTING BUFFALO GRASS PER CITY SPECIFICATIONS ELM TREES PER CITY SPECIFICATIONS 1 LANDSCAPE 1"=20' 0 20' 7 MAY 2015 T 316.267.4002 www.sptarchitecture.com  Rooks County Holdings, LLC P.O. Box 513 Stockton, KS 67669 Quality Housing for Western Kansas Glendale, CA CURRENT PROJECTS The former Star Motel, located at 1400 Main Street in Stockton, was purchased in the fall of 2014. This property was no longer viable as a functioning motel. It was being rented for short- term tenancies, was an eyesore to the community, & disturbances were reported to the local police department on a regular basis. The property consisted of a building with 10 motel units, & a SF dwelling. The SF dwelling was updated with fire alarms & an interior remodel & was tenanted with a new family moving to town. The exterior of the building is in transition; to date, all of the windows & windows have been replaced, new siding was installed, & the house will be painted in June. The motel building is being converted to a 5 unit apartment building. To date, 4 of the 5 units have been converted to 1 BR, 1B apartments & all have been tenanted. The final unit will consist of a 2BR, 2B unit & is scheduled to be completed during the summer. The exterior façade is being updated with new doors, HVAC units, & will be repainted. The landscaping for the entire property will be updated by the end of May with a large order for trees & shrubs being placed at Hays Greenhouse. All improvements to the property are scheduled to be completed by the end of summer in 2015. Photos from interior of apartment unit above. Photo of siding, windows, & door renovations to house. Paint & landscape improvements to follow. Photo of motel units being converted to apartments. Roofing has been replaced. Doors, HVACs, paint, landscaping ongoing. The former Americana Motel, located at 521 N. 1st Street in Stockton, was purchased in the fall of 2014, as well. This property was a functioning motel, but was very dilapidated with numerous code violations. The property consisted of a house/office, & 2 separate buildings demised into 14 motel rooms. The office at the motel was closed upon close of escrow with all check-ins directed to the M Motel to significantly cut fixed costs. The office is mainly comprised of a 2 story limestone house that is one of the oldest structures in Stockton dating to c. 1865. The interior of the limestone house has been converted to a law office. The exterior of the building will undergo some repair to structural cracks & will be repainted this summer, along with cleanup of the grounds & a period-appropriate brick sidewalk running from the public street to the house. Immediately upon closing escrow, any/all code violations were corrected on the motel buildings. Having recently completed the renovation of the M Motel’s other location, refreshing of the 14 rooms at this location will follow. Because of the notoriety of the motel’s prior name, “The Owl Motel”, there are plans to preserve the original monument sign as the M Motel’s “Owl Location” with some owl theming on the interior of the motel rooms. The building is scheduled to be repainted, along with upgrades to the wild game cleaning station in preparation for the fall hunting seasons. Our most recent acquisition occurred on April 24th. It was an abandoned house slated for demolition located at 704 S. 1st Street in Stockton. It will become the new residence for our company’s owner & the office for Rooks County Holdings. The structure was gutted during the week of May 4th & is currently under major renovation. A little peek at the “before” condition follows below. Renovations are scheduled to be completed by June 15 th. We are also working with Phillips County for the preservation of the Masonic Lodge located at 603 4th Street in Phillipsburg. The lodge was originally constructed in 1900 as a 2 story brick structure with 10,000sf of space. The building sustained significant damage to the roof in 2014, & owner did not have insurance. We will close escrow on the building this week & stabilize the building with repairs to the roof, the brick, & columns over the next 2 months. An adaptive reuse of the building as apartments is in the works.  Rooks County Holdings, LLC P.O. Box 513 Stockton, KS 67669 Quality Housing for Western Kansas Glendale, CA COMPLETED PROJECTS The Tudor Apartments, located at 2nd & Gracie Streets in Stockton, were purchased in December of 2013 with 50% vacancy. Located across the street from Stockton’s elementary school, & there were disturbances and police calls. The property was re-tenanted, many units were remodeled. The property is fully leased with a wait list. The brickstone apartment building, located at 503 S. 1st in Stockton, was purchased in the spring of 2014. Because of a prior flood in the basement, those units were uninhabitable. Within a month of purchasing the property, the basement units were fully remodeled & filled with long-term tenants. The SF dwelling located at 704 N. 2nd in Stockton was purchased in the spring of 2014. The house was fully remodeled & now is the home for a young family. The former Midwest Motel, located at 1401 Main Street in Stockton, was purchased in the fall of 2014. The property was dilapidated & had not been updated since 1983. The motel has been re-branded as The M Motel with all 14 rooms having been fully renovated (with the monument sign being re-painted in June). M custom embroidered linens The SF farmhouse located at 1418 Main Street in Stockton was recently purchased & stabilized with a tenant. There are plans for adding an additional house to the property, either by moving in a local historic house, or constructing another one. Parcel Details for 026-182-04-0-10-17-002.00-0 Quick Reference #: R12078 (Primary): VIGNESHVARAI LLC Mailing Address: 810 E 8th St Hays, KS 67601 Address: 810 E 8th St Hays, KS 67601 Neighborhood: 502 - Hays Tract: Section: 04 Township: 14 Range: 18 Legal Description: HAYS TRACTS UNPLATTED , ACRES 1.4 , BEG 124(S) NW OF INTER E/L SEC 4 & SLY R/W 8TH ST TH NWLY 229.73 TH SLY 272 TH SELY 229.73 TH NLY 273.53 TO POB SECTION 04 TOWNSHIP 14 RANGE 18 Acres: 1.40 Market Acres: 1.44 : Hotel / motel Activity: Transient living Ownership: Private-fee simple Site: Developed site - with buildings Property Factors Utilities: All Public - 1 Parking Quantity: Adequate - 2 Access: Paved Road - 1 Parking Proximity: On Site - 3 Fronting: Major Strip or CBD - 1 Parking Covered: Location: Perimeter Central Parking Uncovered: Business District - 2  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Setback Variance Application #04-15 ADDRESS: 1308 W 44th OWNER: Robert J. Wickham TYPE OF REVIEW: Variance PRESENTED BY: Jesse Rohr, P.I.E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: April 23, 2015 AGENDA DATE: May 13, 2015 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 7’3” to 3’, a variance of 4’ 3” to allow the construction of a detached 18’ x 18’ shed on the property located at 1308 W 44th (see further details below and attached site drawing). Staff recommends setting a public hearing for the June 10, 2015 Board of Zoning meeting for the request as submitted if it is found to be warranted based on discussion. BACKGROUND:  The applicant is requesting a variance on 1 side: o West Side – 7’ 3” to 3’  Applicant wishes to construct a detached shed on the property  Applicant wishes to utilize an existing slab on the property Setback Required Applicant Proposed Front Yard N/A N/A Side Yard 7’ 3” 3’ Rear Yard 5’ 5’ Other Structures 5’ >5’ STANDARDS OF EVALUATION: Per State Statute 12-759 and City Ordinance Sec. 71-1250  The BZA has the authority to grant a variance if a literal enforcement of the provisions of the adopted regulations, will, in an individual case, result in unnecessary hardship, provided: o The spirit of the regulations shall be observed o Public safety and welfare secured o Substantial justice shall be done  The applicant must show that the property was acquired in good faith and that the variance is needed due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances of the property such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot  Before granting a variance on the basis of unusual difficulty or unreasonable hardship, there must be finding by the Board that all of the following conditions exist: a. Uniqueness of the property not ordinarily found in the same zone or district and not created by willful action of the owner Staff Analysis: It is not immediately clear what is unique about this property that would warrant such a variance. This lot is very typical of others in the area regarding lot size. The applicant states that the lot is small and narrow but that does not seem to be the case. The existence of an existing concrete pad is not a factor in considering this property to be unique. There appears to be no reason the proposed shed cannot be shifted to the east a few feet. b. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners Staff Analysis: Erecting a structure as close as is proposed could definitely affect the rights of adjacent owners. Setbacks are in place to provide room for light, air movement, and safety and all of these might be compromised if the variance is approved as submitted. This is a rather large shed (18’ x 18’) to be setting this close to the property line in this neighborhood. c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner Staff Analysis: Again, this is a lot that is very consistent with others in the neighborhood. A smaller shed could be considered that would be able to meet the setbacks and not require a variance while still maintaining the yard space the applicant desires. The placement of a shed of this size is more a factor in the yard size than having to meet the required setbacks.  Page 2  d. The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety, or general welfare Staff Analysis: It is possible that if granted as proposed, this variance could adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety, or general welfare. e. The granting of the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the regulations Staff Analysis: The granting of a variance for the proposed shed, with approval of a variance as submitted, would be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the zoning regulations. RECOMMENDED ACTION: After discussion about these items with the owner, and if the owner still wants to proceed with a hearing, AND if the BZA feels a hearing is warranted, a hearing may be set for the June 10, 2015 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. OPTIONS:  Set a public hearing for the June 10, 2015 BZA meeting  Do not move this forward for a public hearing ATTACHMENTS:  Variance application  Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner  Images/Maps  Page 3 SUBJECT AREA 1308 W 44th Approx. Shed Location  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Setback Variance Application #05-15 ADDRESS: 2916 Barclay OWNER: Jerome Rome TYPE OF REVIEW: Variance PRESENTED BY: Jesse Rohr, P.I.E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: April 23, 2015 AGENDA DATE: May 13, 2015 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 10’ to 3’, a variance of 7’ to allow the construction of a detached 30’x 30’ garage on the property located at 2916 Barclay (see further details below and attached site drawing). Staff recommends setting a public hearing for the June 10, 2015 Board of Zoning meeting for the request as submitted if it is found to be warranted based on discussion. BACKGROUND:  The applicant is requesting variances on 1 side: o South Side – 10’ to 3’  Applicant wishes to construct a 30’ x 30’ detached garage on the property  Intent is to access the garage from the street side since there is no alley access. Setback Required Applicant Proposed Front Yard N/A N/A Side Yard 10’ 3’ Rear Yard 5’ 5’ Other Structures 5’ >5’ STANDARDS OF EVALUATION: Per State Statute 12-759 and City Ordinance Sec. 71-1250  The BZA has the authority to grant a variance if a literal enforcement of the provisions of the adopted regulations, will, in an individual case, result in unnecessary hardship, provided: o The spirit of the regulations shall be observed o Public safety and welfare secured o Substantial justice shall be done  The applicant must show that the property was acquired in good faith and that the variance is needed due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances of the property such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot  Before granting a variance on the basis of unusual difficulty or unreasonable hardship, there must be finding by the Board that all of the following conditions exist: a. Uniqueness of the property not ordinarily found in the same zone or district and not created by willful action of the owner Staff Analysis: It is not immediately clear what is unique about this property that would warrant such a variance. This lot is very typical of others in the area regarding lot size. The only possible unique item is that this lot and the lots adjacent to it have no rear access to the property as do lots in other near- by areas. This is a very large accessory structure (30’ x 30’), and by reducing the size to approximately 24’ x 30’, little or no variance would be required, however, vehicle access to the garage could be limited. b. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners Staff Analysis: Erecting a structure as close as is proposed could definitely affect the rights of adjacent owners. Setbacks are in place to provide room for light, air movement, and safety and all of these might be compromised if the variance is approved as submitted. This is a very large garage (30’ x 30’) to be setting this close to the property line in this neighborhood. c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner Staff Analysis: Again, this is a lot that is very consistent with others in the neighborhood. A smaller garage could be considered that would be able to meet the setbacks and may not require any variance. The fact that the owner purchased a vehicle that does not fit into the existing 2-car attached garage is a self-imposed hardship and not a valid factor in determining whether or not  Page 2  the variance should be considered. If the length of the existing garage is a factor, possibly the applicant could consider adding on to the front or rear of the garage. d. The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety, or general welfare Staff Analysis: It is possible that if granted as proposed, this variance could adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety, or general welfare. e. The granting of the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the regulations Staff Analysis: The granting of a variance for the proposed garage, with approval of a variance as submitted, would be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the zoning regulations. RECOMMENDED ACTION: After discussion about these items with the owner, and if the owner still wants to proceed with a hearing, AND if the BZA feels a hearing is warranted, a hearing may be set for the June 10, 2015 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. OPTIONS:  Set a public hearing for the June 10, 2015 BZA meeting  Do not move this forward for a public hearing ATTACHMENTS:  Variance application  Variance justification and diagram from owner  Images/Maps  Page 3 2916 Barclay http://www.geodataportal.net/aspnet_client/ESRI/WebADF/PrintTaskLa... Subject Location 1 of 1 5/6/2015 2:34 PM 2916 Barclay Approx. location of Garage  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Setback Variance Application #06-15 ADDRESS: 508 E 17th OWNER: Alaina Hughes TYPE OF REVIEW: Variance PRESENTED BY: Jesse Rohr, P.I.E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: April 23, 2015 MEETING DATE: May 13, 2015 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25’ to 4’, a variance of 21’ to allow the construction of a carport on the property located at 508 E 17th (see further details below and attached site drawing). Due to the extreme nature of this variance request, staff does not recommend setting a public hearing for this case as submitted. BACKGROUND:  The applicant is requesting variances on 1 side: o Front Side – 25’ to 4’  Applicant wishes to construct a metal carport on the property on the existing front driveway Setback Required Applicant Proposed Front Yard 25’ 4’ Side Yard 7’ >7’ Rear Yard N/A N/A Other Structures N/A N/A STANDARDS OF EVALUATION:  Per State Statute 12-759 and City Ordinance Sec. 71-1250  The BZA has the authority to grant a variance if a literal enforcement of the provisions of the adopted regulations, will, in an individual case, result in unnecessary hardship, provided: o The spirit of the regulations shall be observed o Public safety and welfare secured o Substantial justice shall be done  The applicant must show that the property was acquired in good faith and that the variance is needed due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances of the property such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot  Before granting a variance on the basis of unusual difficulty or unreasonable hardship, there must be finding by the Board that all of the following conditions exist: a. Uniqueness of the property not ordinarily found in the same zone or district and not created by willful action of the owner Staff Analysis: It is not immediately clear what is unique about this property that would warrant such a variance, except that the property has no rear vehicular access. Other than that, this lot is very typical of others in the area regarding lot size and home size. The owner wishes to have vehicular protection which is the reason for the variance. This home originally had a garage which was converted to living space by a previous owner. b. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners Staff Analysis: Erecting a structure as close as is proposed could definitely affect the rights of adjacent owners. Setbacks are in place to provide room for light, air movement, and safety and all of these might be compromised if the variance is approved as submitted. Approved front yard variances of this type are unprecedented and there are no instances of a similar front yard variance being requested at any time in the past. c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner Staff Analysis: As mentioned already, this is a lot that is very consistent with others in the neighborhood. Covered vehicle parking is a desire or a privilege and not a right. A property owner should take into consideration these types of things when planning to purchase property. The hardship here is completely self-imposed and not granting the variance will in no way affect the ability of the owner to continue to use the property as intended.  Page 2  d. The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety, or general welfare Staff Analysis: It is possible that if granted as proposed, this variance could adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety, or general welfare. e. The granting of the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the regulations Staff Analysis: The granting of a variance for the proposed carport, with approval of a variance as submitted, would be completely opposed to the general spirit and intent of the zoning regulations. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Setting a variance of this magnitude would set a precedence that would have a negative bearing on future requests. After discussion about these items with the owner, and if the owner still wants to proceed with a hearing, AND if the BZA feels a hearing is warranted, a hearing may be set for the June 10, 2015 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Staff does not recommend that this case goes to public hearing. OPTIONS:  Do not move this forward for a public hearing  Set a public hearing for the June 10, 2015 BZA meeting ATTACHMENTS:  Variance application  Variance justification and diagram from owner  Images/Maps  Page 3 SUBJECT AREA 508 E 17th http://www.geodataportal.net/aspnet_client/ESRI/WebADF/PrintTaskLa... Approx. Carport Location 1 of 1 5/6/2015 2:00 PM