Board of Zoning Appeals

HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AGENDA CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1507 MAIN, HAYS, KS TUESDAY APRIL 9, 2019 8:15 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN. 2. CONSENT AGENDA. A. Minutes of the regular meeting of March 13, 2019 meeting Action: Consider approving the minutes of the March 13, 2019 meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. None NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. 810 E. 11th – Variance for an additional sign on building other than storefront. 4. OFF AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS. A. None 5. 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 MARCH 13, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Hays Area Board of Zoning Appeals met at their regularly scheduled meeting date of Wednesday February 13, 2019 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, Rich Sieker, & Michael Berges Absent: Tom Lippert City Staff in attendance: Curtis Deines, Superintendent of Planning Inspection and Enforcement and Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Minutes: Jerry Sonntag moved, Rich Sieker seconded the motion to approve the minutes as written from the February 13, 2019 meeting with a correction noted by Michael Berges of his last name misspelled in one place. Vote: AYES: Lou Caplan, Jerry Sonntag, Rich Sieker, & Michael Berges 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REQUEST BY ALBERTO SOLIS AND OWNER FREDY URGELL SOSA TO REDUCE THE STREET SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK FROM 14 FEET TO 2 ½ FEET, A VARIANCE OF 11 ½ FEET TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT ABUTTING THE GARAGE AT 217 W 14TH STREET, HAYS, KS (CASE #02-19): Curtis Deines provided a power point presentation on the overhead visual with the information, location, and overview site plan of the above property for the above variance request for a carport next to the garage at 217 W 14th Street. The property does not have clear property lines marked or identified; it was measured from the street and alley. He presented the variance history for similar cases. There had been a variance request in the neighborhood at 216 W 16th Street in 2010. The variance was approved to line up the detached structure with the house on the street side. The house is approximately 8 feet from the west property line. He stated that the applicant had been in an agreement to negotiate a lesser variance. The variance request would change from 11 ½ feet to 7 ½ feet. He showed a picture where the proposed carport would set and be visible like the recreational vehicle that is currently setting on the side of the garage. 1 For alternate setbacks to be used, the neighborhood must have the same characteristics or similar situations. Staff is not in favor of this variance request as submitted; however, they could support a variance that would keep the carport in line with the house. He read the following options to the board:  Disapprove variance as submitted  Approve variance with conditions  Do not approve variance request Lou Caplan asked if staff had any discussion with the applicant to consider having the carport align with the house. Curtis Deines answered that staff did have a discussion with the applicant. Alberto Solis came before the board to state he was in agreement for the 7 ½ foot variance so the carport would line up with the house. Lou Caplan asked if that meant his needs. He answered “Yes”. Jerry Sonntag stated that he was okay with the carport in line with the house. Michael Berges asked about the integrity of the structure if it was like the picture shown at the meeting. Curtis Deines answered that the metal does overlap; he explained about the structure. Jerry Sonntag moved, Rich Sieker seconded the motion to grant a lesser variance of 7 ½ feet to reduce the street side yard building setback from the required 14 feet to 6 1/2 foot to construct a carport to align with the house. Vote: AYES: Lou Caplan, Jerry Sonntag, Rich Sieker, & Michael Berges B. PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REQUEST BY BRANDON JOHNSON FOR A VARIANCE IN HEIGHT FROM 18 FEET TO 22 FEET TO CONSTRUCT A 30 X 60 DETACHED GARAGE AT 3314 THUNDERBIRD DRIVE. (CASE #03-19): Curtis Deines provided a power point presentation on the overhead visual with the information, location, and site plan for the above height variance request to build a 30-foot by 60-foot detached garage at 3314 Thunderbird Drive. The property is near the Smoky Hill Country Club Golf Course. He presented a visual of the plat of the subject property to point out that the applicant will adhere to the 20-foot vacated alley easement, 10-foot easement, and a 5-foot walk way easement. Staff had done a review of the area. He provided a drawing that shows the height of the homes along Thunderbird Drive; some being the same height and others are taller. The houses adjacent and across the street are taller and a different style than this property. One property has a garage taller than the primary structure that is not very noticeable. He provided a rendition of how the height of the garage would appear on the property. The drawing depicts a 16-inch overhang, 4 ½ pitch roof with asphalt shingle. There is also a 14-foot-tall 2 opening to the garage. He showed the layout picture of the interior of the garage that includes a loft in the back. The regulations allow for a maximum height of not to exceed 18 feet in height of the principle dwelling. The home is a ranch style home less than 18 feet in height; thus, the reason for the variance in height request. There is no history for this type of variance. Regulations for the height on accessory structures was introduced in 2016 and changed in August of 2018 for the current language. He read the five statutory requirements to be considered for a variance. He provided comments.  Uniqueness - Lot does not appear unique, it is typical of others in the area.  Adjacent Property Owners - It seems this request will have limited effect on any rights of any adjacent owner  Hardship – The hardship is self-imposed  Not adversely affect the public health – Variance would not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety or general welfare of the area.  Spirit and Intent of the Zoning Regulations – The granting of a variance would go against the spirit and intent of the regulations. He cautioned the board that if this variance was approved, it may set precedence that more cases like this one may come before the board. He presented the following options to the board:  Disapprove variance as submitted  Approve variance with conditions  Do not approve variance request For discussion, Jerry Sonntag asked how they determine the height; if they go as far as talking about shooting elevations from the top of the house to the top of the garage when there are different grade levels, or the dirt work and pads are higher to prevent stormwater runoff. The structure would be taller than the house. Does the wording need to be amended to address this? Curtis Deines answered that per regulation, the height is measured from the finished floor to the peak of the roof. They take that same measurement from the house as well. He acknowledged that if there would be a 3-foot pad with an 18-foot-tall structure or the grade of a lot is lower in the back than in the front, they would have to look at that specifically case by case that it meets the intent of the regulations. They do a pre-permit inspection, so they know the full scope of the job before issuing a permit. It may be where a variance would be needed for elevation or the grade of the lot. With a variance, a condition could be added about the finished grade. Ken Johnson, father and representative of the owner, stated that to their point, there are garages in that area taller than the houses, so they would not be setting a precedence. Curtis Deines explained that those garages were built prior to these specific regulations. This is a unique situation. Jerry Sonntag explained that this discussion was more about the code. He explained that this was different where the structures are taller in this neighborhood and the proposed structure would be on a larger lot behind the home. Curtis Deines stated that the neighborhood characteristics makes sense of that. 3 Michael Berges asked about the prior regulations. Curtis Deines stated that if a resident wanted to build a garage over 18 feet, there had to be a second story for the remainder of the height. It posed challenges for those wanting a taller garage and posed enforcement challenges. With the neighborhood conservation, the change would make it more consistent by removing the two-story requirement and preventing detached structures over towering the home. Michael Berges pointed out that the immediate neighbors have homes taller than 18 feet. He pointed to the property of an immediate neighbor that had a garage over 18 foot. He did not think this garage would stick out any differently. He stated that it fits within the neighborhood characteristics. He asked if the reason for the height was to match the pitch to the pitch on the house. Jerry Sonntag answered they tend not to want to go below 4 /12 pitch. Lou Caplan stated that his concern is the request that we are okay with allowing a 22-foot-high structure that is over the maximum of 18 feet. Once there is an exception, it is hard not to do a second one. Lou Caplan entertained a motion. Jerry Sonntag moved, Rich Sieker seconded the motion to grant the four-foot height variance to allow the twenty-two feet (22’) feet high detached structure at 3314 Thunderbird Drive. Vote: AYES: Jerry Sonntag, Rich Sieker, & Michael Berges NAY: Lou Caplan 4. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None 5. OFF AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS: A. New City Web Site: Curtis Deines explained the new capabilities of the new city web site. He explained how to sign up for notifications put out by the City. This would also include notification of the Hays Area Board of Zoning meeting and the location of the agenda packet. B. Alleys Temporarily Closed - Trash Collection Curbside: The alleys are impassable due to the ruts because of the mud from the rain and snow and thawing. For those that have dirt alleys, trash collection will be temporarily at curbside. Michael Berges noted that his alley was tore up pretty good by the truck. He asked if it was known how long the alleys would be closed. Curtis Deines answered that if there is more rain and snow will depend on that time. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Lou Caplan adjourned the meeting at 8:55 a.m. Submitted by: Linda K. Bixenman, Administrative Assistant Planning, Inspection and Enforcement 4 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Sign Variance Application #04-19 ADDRESS: 810 E. 11th OWNER: John Kyle Doerfler TYPE OF REVIEW: Variance PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, P. I. E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: April 2, 2019 MEETING DATE: April 9, 2019 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a variance to be able to place a sign on the east side of the building. Current zoning only allows signage on a building in an I-1 Light Industrial district to be placed on the front façade of the building. The applicant wishes to make sure customers have visibility of his business from Vine St. Staff does support this request to set a public hearing. BACKGROUND:  The applicant has recently opened a new business at 810 E. 11th St in Hays. The property is zoned I-1 Light Industrial and sign regulations only allow signs on the front façade of the building. The applicant has placed a sign on the east side for visibility to Vine St and would like to keep it there.  Current regulation for attached wall signs for an I-1 Nonresidential District: o 1 per storefront façade or tenant o Aggregate (total) sign area of 2 sf. per linear ft. of façade width, or 200 sf., whichever is less. 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: There is nothing unique specifically about the lot as the other lots in the area are similar.The uses in this area are typical for C-2 Commercial General or I-1 Light Industrial. I-1 is more restrictive on sign regulations. The location of this building also is more visible to Vine St. than most buildings on this block. 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 or no effect on any rights of adjacent property owners. c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner Staff Analysis: The hardship is self imposed however, only having a sign on the front does limit visibility of potential customers that would not normally see it. d. The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety, or general welfare Staff Analysis: If granted as proposed, this variance would not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety, or general welfare.  Page 2  e. The granting of the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the regulations. Staff Analysis: Granting the variance request will not be oppose the general spirit and intent of the regulations. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff supports this request. OPTIONS:  Set a public hearing for May 8, 2019.  Do not set a public hearing. ATTACHMENTS:  Variance application  Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner  Images/Maps/Photos  Page 3  04-2019 03-25-2019 --------------------- I-1 Light Industrial March 28, 2019 50.00 Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant