Board of Zoning Appeals

HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AGENDA CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1507 MAIN, HAYS, KS JANUARY 9, 2019 8:15 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN. 2. CONSENT AGENDA. A. Minutes of the regular meeting of August 8th, 2018 meeting Action: Consider approving the minutes of the August 8th, 2018 meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - None 4. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Request by James Werth for a two foot (2’) side yard variance to reduce the side yard building setback from the required five feet (5’) to three feet (3’) to construct a detached garage on Lot 20, Block 2, Country Club Estates 4th Addition, generally known as 3113 T-Bird Cir (Case #01-19). Action: Consider setting a public hearing to consider a side yard (SW corner) variance at 3113 T-Bird Cir. 5. OFF AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS. 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 AUGUST 8, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Hays Area Board of Zoning Appeals met at their regularly scheduled meeting date of Wednesday August 8, 2018 of 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 Rich Sieker Tom Lippert City Staff Present: Jesse Rohr, Public Works Director, Curtis Deines, Superintendent of Planning Inspection and Enforcement and Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant of Planning, Inspection and Enforcement. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Minutes: Jerry Sonntag moved, Rich Sieker seconded the motion to approve the minutes as written from the July 11, 2018 meeting. There were no corrections or additions to those minutes. Vote: Ayes: Lou Caplan Jerry Sonntag Rich Sieker Tom Lippert 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REQUEST BY MATT WILSON/HAYS TW, LLC AND SCOTT CRAWFORD OWNER OF CRAWFORD SUPPLY CO FOR A REDUCTION TO THE MERCHANDISE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FENCED OUTDOOR DISPLAY AREA AND FOR THE OPEN DISPLAY AREA ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 48TH AND ROTH ON A TRACT OF LAND IN THE NE/4 OF S21-T13S-R18W – 235 W 48th St (CASE # 03-18): Lou Caplan asked if it was necessary that the applicant be in attendance before the board begins the public hearing. Jesse Rohr answered that there is no requirement; although it is always asked that they attend. He stated that the applicant had planned to attend. He was at the last meeting when it was talked about. 1 Curtis Deines pointed out there was a change to the agenda. The applicant has pulled the request for propane. They are on an aggressive timeline and did not want anything to hold them up. They may or may not come back for this request. The applicant is requesting a variance request for a reduction in merchandise screening to allow visibility of merchandise on the property at 235 W 48th Street for the Tractor Supply Store. He provided a power point presentation on the overhead visual. He pointed out the area of the proposed building will be 19,000 square feet with 15,000 square feet of display area adjacent to it along with other display areas that will have natural screening (landscaping). The applicant will be placing a chain link fence around some of their merchandise, so the customers can see the merchandise inside. The areas around the outside will have some screening and landscaping. There was no outdoor screening required until the new regulations in August of 2016. This is the first case associated with screening. It has been discussed if this needs to be looked at. Staff’s interpretation of the screening is that you can see something behind a screen but not clearly identify what it is. It is limiting the visibility of something to be seen. He provided some examples of businesses that have the outdoor screening to display their merchandise such as Orscheln’s, Walmart, Westlake Hardware, Home Depot. He pointed out the five statutory requirements to be satisfied to grant a variance.  Uniqueness to the property:  Affect on Adjacent Properties:  Unnecessary Hardship:  Not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare.  Spirit and Intent of the Zoning Regulations: He stated the options to the board:  Approve the variance  Approve the variance with conditions  Do not approve the variance Staff recommends to approve the variance as requested. He asked if there were any questions. Lou Caplan used an example stating that they would not want screening around a car dealership, so the cars could not be seen from the outside. Curtis Deines answered that there are regulations specific to vehicle displays. There are buffer and screening requirements if they are next to residential areas. 2 Lou Caplan stated that he thought this would be the same that this business merchandise should be visible especially in this area where it is. If it was in the middle of a residential area, that would be a different story. He stated that he did not see a problem with the screening request. Lou Caplan asked if there would be merchandise displayed outside of the screened area and what are the regulations. Curtis Deines answered that there are landscaping requirements that have more density. The applicant has proposed a landscaping plan. He pointed out the detention area for stormwater so there is a separation from the street to this area. Lou Caplan entertained a motion. Jerry Sonntag moved, Tom Lippert seconded the motion to grant the variance as requested for the reduction of merchandise screening to allow visibility of merchandise with a chain link fence on the above property based on the consideration it meets the five statutory requirements. (Case 03-18). Tom Lippert asked about the propane if it would have to come forward again for that request. Curtis Deines answered there has not been a change in the regulation so there would have to be a public hearing. Vote: Ayes: Lou Caplan Jerry Sonntag Rich Sieker Tom Lippert 4. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: - None 5. OFF AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS: New Hays Area Board of Zoning Member: Curtis Deines stated that a new member will be appointed at the August 9th, 2018 City Commission meeting. He asked for any comments from the commission. Screening: Jerry Sonntag asked the purpose the screening was recently brought into our regulations. Curtis Deines answered that if it brings more questions why they are regulating this, and it may warrant changes to the regulations that are to more specific uses that make sense for screening. Jerry Sonntag asked about screening for a recycling business. He does believe there needs to be screening in some instances and be able to avoid variances for situations like this in the future. 3 6. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Lou Caplan adjourned the meeting at 8:32 a.m. Submitted by: Linda K. Bixenman, Administrative Assistant Planning, Inspection and Enforcement 4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Setback Variance Application #01-19 ADDRESS: 3113 Thunderbird Circle OWNER: James Werth TYPE OF REVIEW: Variance PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, P. I. E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: January 2, 2019 MEETING DATE: January 9, 2019 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the south side yard setback of a residential property from five ft. (5’) to three ft. (3’) for a detached garage. Staff recommends setting a public hearing for February 13, 2019. BACKGROUND:  The applicant is requesting a variance on 1 side: o Southwest Side – 5’ to 3’ Setback Required Applicant Proposed Front Yard N/A N/A Side Yard 5’ 3’ Rear Yard N/A N/A Other Structures N/A N/A  Applicant wishes to remove his old 10 x 12 shed and build a large detached garage as described as close to the south west property line as possible. STANDARDS OF EVALUATION: Per State Statute 12-759 and City Ordinance 3919  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: This lot doesn’t appear to have any specific uniqueness as this lot is very typical of others in the area. A majority of the properties in this area do not have alley or rear access. b. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners. Staff Analysis: It seems that this request will have limited effect on any rights of adjacent property owners. The proposed project will only affect the southwest property owner and will encroach upon the side yard setback. This building will not encroach any closer than the building previously constructed. The difference is an increase in size and height of the building c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner Staff Analysis: It appears that this proposal is a self-imposed hardship. The applicant has proposed a 30 ft wide structure. If the applicant is concerned how far to the north the building is located, a 28 ft wide structure will not take up more yard space and be compliant with current set back requirements. d. The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety, or general welfare  Page 2  Staff Analysis: If granted as proposed, this variance would not 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 building with a three (3) ft. setback does oppose the general spirit and intent of the zoning regulations. The regulations were changed from a 10% side yard set-back requirement to 5 ft for accessory structures to allow accessory structures to be closer to the side yard. This lot arrangement benefits from those changes. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends setting a public hearing for February 13, 2019 OPTIONS:  Set a public hearing for February 13, 2019  Do not set a Public Hearing ATTACHMENTS:  Variance application  Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner  Images/Maps/Photos  Page 3  to reduce the south west side yard setback from 5 ft to 3 ft. for a variance of 2 ft. Date: December 12th , 2018 To: Hays Area Board of Zoning From: Applicant- - James Werth Home Owner - James Werth Agent - Chris Dinkel Statement of Justification Uniqueness: Site conditions, setbacks, easements and relative location of existing structures restrict the improvement of the property by limiting the usable area in the rear of the involved property and potential proposed structures. Current conditions limit proposed structures while restricting access to existing structures if new buildings were to be constructed. Adjacent Property: The approval of the proposed variance permit will not adversely affect involved adjacent properties as current structures extend beyond setbacks and easements allowing for potential structure as well. The curb appeal of both involved properties and those indirectly involved are also not adversely affected by the granting of the proposed variance permit. Hardship: Current site property lines present a situation in which the frontage and access to the rear is restricted by the narrowing of the property lines from the rear to the front of the property, reducing the sites frontage. The existing residential structure is located as far as possible to the Northeast at the minimum setback. Access to the rear of the property on the Southwest is restricted by narrowing property lines to the front of the property as well. This restricts the home owner to access usable area in the rear of the property for the purpose of a new structure without the granting of a variance. Public Interest: The approval of the variance permit will and does not adversely affect current or future public health, safety, moral, order, convenience, prosperity, or the general public welfare. Spirit and Intent of the Zoning Regulations: The proposed application for variance speaks within the intent and spirit of municipal zoning , while protecting public interest and the interests of the involved properties current and any potential owners. Existing small 120 Sq Ft storage shed approximately 3ft from the property line.