Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular MeetingHays, KS · July 8, 2020
Agenda
HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AGENDA
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
1507 MAIN, HAYS, KS
WEDNESDAY, July 8th, 2020
8:15 A.M.
A. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN.
B. CONSENT AGENDA.
A. Minutes of the regular meeting of June 10, 2020.
Action: Consider approving the minutes of the June 10, 2020 regular meeting.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS.
A. Public Hearing request by Golden Belt Bank (Charles Renz, Architect) requesting a
variance to reduce the front (south) yard building setback from the required 35 feet
to 32 feet for the construction of a small addition to the south façade at 1101 E. 27th
Street.
Action: Consider approval for a variance request at 1101 E. 27th St.
B. Public Hearing request by Jesse Rohr for an east side yard variance from the
required 5’ to 3’ and a variance to reduce the required separation distance between
structures from 5’ feet to 3’ to construct a 12’ x 24’ structure at 209 E 19th Street.
Action: Consider approval for a variance on the east side yard and separation
distance between structures at 209 E. 19th Street.
D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS.
A. Request for Public Hearing by HTS Real Estate LLC for a 20’ variance to reduce the
front yard building setback from the required 35’ to 15’ for the construction of a 50’
by 100’ building for tractor/trailer storage at 704 E. 12th Street.
E. OFF AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS.
None
F. 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
June 10, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER: The Hays Area Board of Zoning Appeals met for the
regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, June 10, 2020 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, Brian Garrett, Russell Koenigsman
City Staff in attendance: Collin Bielser, Assistant City Manager, Jesse Rohr, Director
of Public Works, Curtis Deines, Superintendent of Planning, Inspection, and
Enforcement, John T. Bird, City Attorney and Linda Bixenman, Administrative
Assistant.
2. CONSENT AGENDA:
A. MINUTES: Jerry Sonntag moved, Rich Sieker seconded the motion to approve the
minutes as submitted from the March 11, 2020 meeting. There were no corrections
or additions to those minutes.
Vote: AYES:
Lou Caplan, Jerry Sonntag, Rich Sieker, Brian Garrett, Russell Koenigsman
3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. Public Hearing for Standlee H Dalton requesting a variance to reduce the
front yard building setback from the required 25 feet to 7 feet for a carport at
2307 Oak Street.
Curtis Deines provided a PowerPoint presentation on the overhead visual with
the information, location, and overview site of the above property at 2307 Oak
Street within the NC.3 (neighborhood conservation – single family detached
housing) zoning district. The request is for an 18-foot variance to reduce the front
yard building setback from 25 feet to 7 feet for an open carport. The structure was
put up without a permit and the property owner is requesting a variance after the
fact.
He presented pictures of the open carport. He presented the table from the
UDC that shows the setback requirements for this zoning district.
History
He stated that two previous cases with a similar request in the past had been
denied. There have not been any requests in the past for any special
accommodations. Most variances for carports have been to the side yard and kept
open.
1
He pointed out two considerations:
The setback standards are not less than 25 feet in many of all existing
properties in Hays.
The purpose of the Neighborhood Revitalization Conservation District is
intended to provide for neighborhood stability and allow for reasonable
expansion or new construction in established residential neighborhoods.
Staff is not in favor of the variance request as submitted. The carport as
installed is a violation of the zoning code and does not appear to meet the
requirements for a variance. However, specific conditions for special
accommodation may be considered.
He presented the options:
Approve a variance with conditions as shown below: including but not limited
to a requirement to restore the property to compliance upon the current
resident vacating the premises with a legal instrument to ensure future
compliance.
Deny variance as submitted.
Approve the variance with conditions.
Lou Caplan asked if there were any questions from the board. There were none.
Lou Caplan asked if there were any questions of the audience.
Ashley Comeau, from the Jeter Law Firm, representing Standlee Dalton, came
before the board to represent her client’s case. She read the letter from Lynnly’s
doctor that provided the health issues that affect her balance that justify why it is
important that she keep the carport.
She stated that one thing to point out is that the carport was not installed to
just protect a vehicle or personal property. It was installed with handrails
especially for this tenant. The letter that is in the agenda packet from the doctor
notes that Lynnly would benefit from the use of the handrails that allow her to
safely get from the vehicle to the home.
She also read an e-mail that was sent from Lynnly’s neighbor. He had met
Lynnly for the first time because he heard her fall outside of her home and ran
over to assist her until help arrived. He is the neighbor directly across the street
on 24th Street that has the most open view of the carport. His position is that the
carport does not take away the aesthetic of their neighborhood. He admires the
utility of the carport and is happy knowing that it could make things easier for
Lynnly. He is in favor of the board granting the variance.
She pointed out that the Board of Zoning Appeals has the authority per,
Kansas Statute KSA 12-759, to grant a variance due to special conditions where
2
enforcement of the provision of the regulations, will in an individual case, result in
unnecessary hardship. She wanted to point out the unnecessary hardship that
would exist is if the carport was not allowed to stay in its current position.
She pointed out that the entrance nearest the carport has fewer steps than the
other entrances to the home. This provides some independence and allows her
to get in and out of her home safer than any other entrance.
This is a corner lot with a concrete retaining wall around the side of the lot that
would make it cost prohibitive to move the carport to the side. To move it to the
back would be additional stairs to the entrance of the home. These are the
reasons that carport was set at its current location to help her with fall prevention
so she can be independent.
She also pointed out that Mr. Dalton would be willing to sign an “Affidavit” or
“Covenant” recorded with the Register of Deeds Office stating that this carport is
only for the current tenant. Once she no longer resides in the home, it would be
removed. This is to make life easier for one individual that lives in the home, so
she does not fall and become seriously injured. It is not meant to add value to the
property or be a permanent structure.
She asked for any questions.
Standlee Dalton added that when he installed the carport, it did not occur to
him that there was a zoning ordinance against it. His daughter has handrails and
grab bars throughout the home and carport. This is for the safety for his daughter
that uses the handrails to get to the car. He emphasized that he is trying to help
his daughter and protect her life. He stated that he is not thumbing his nose at
the law; he is doing it to help his daughter. He explained all that had to be done to
the home to be ADA compliant. He said “Guys, it is my daughter and I have got
to do it”. He asked for any questions.
Ashley Comeau added that at the end of the day, it was meant to be a
temporary structure for Lynnly. It was not meant to be a permanent structure.
That is why they are requesting the variance, so that it can be there to temporarily
help her, and it would be taken down when she no longer needs it.
Brian Garrett asked if this is something the city can comment on.
Curtis Deines answered that the Board does have options for special
conditions for a case. If it is a temporary situation; over time it will go away.
City Attorney, John T. Bird, spoke on the subject to explain that staff has given
a recommendation purely from the land use point of view. It is not meant to be
critical of this request. He explained they have this Board to do what they are
being asked to do; to accommodate situations that aren’t a common
circumstance. This is not a common circumstance.
This case is in litigation over this. He explained to the Board that when he
looked at it, he looked at it purely from the point of view of what would be to the
3
best interest of the citizens of the City of Hays. If you are inclined to grant a
variance, he explained that all that needs to be done would be grant the variance
subject to a covenant that Ms. Comeau offered. It can be drafted and filed that
will protect the public from here on out. This property would be encumbered with
that covenant so it can’t be sold to someone else without their knowledge that that
condition must be brought back into compliance.
He explained that he had looked into the physical facts, and it is a minor
accommodation after the fact after Lynnly is done using the property. He does
think there is an aspect per the American Disabilities Act to this. He believes that
the city has a duty to make reasonable accommodations to this.
From a legal point of view, he recommends drafting some type of covenant that
takes care of the future but allows the property to be enjoyed by this particular
individual. He asked for any questions.
Lou Caplan asked Attorney John T Bird, if he would be willing to overlook this
situation. City Attorney, John T. Bird, answered that he would not only be willing,
he has to. He explained the instrument would be properly crafted and filed.
Lou Caplan thanked the Attorney John T. Bird.
He asked if there was any further discussion by the board. There was none.
He entertained a motion:
Jerry Sonntag moved, Brian Garrett seconded the motion to grant the 18 foot
variance to reduce the front yard building setback from the required 25 feet to 7
feet for the already installed open carport subject to the condition by a recorded
legal instrument that the property would be restored to its original condition by
removal of the carport after the subject occupant moves from the property.
Vote: AYES:
Lou Caplan, Jerry Sonntag, Rich Sieker, Brian Garrett, Russell Koenigsman
Lou Caplan addressed the applicant and his attorney to work with the City
Attorney, John T. Bird.
B. Public Hearing for Dustin and Laney Roths, owners of Roths Luxury
Properties LLC requesting a Special Use Permit for a “Place of Public
Assembly” within a “C-3” Central Business District at 1102 Main Street:
Curtis Deines provided a PowerPoint presentation on the overhead visual with
the information, location, and overview site of the property of 1102 Main Street on
the request of a special use permit for a “Place of Public Assembly” within a “C-3”
Central Business District at 1102 Main Street.
He pointed out to keep in mind that within the “C-3” (Central Business) zoning
district downtown does not require off street parking requirements out right;
although there is a conflict in the code with a special use permit that does require
4
off street parking. The following is the compatibility standards to be addressed for
this type of special use:
C-3 – Parking shall be: Accommodated through on-lot, on-street, or private
off-street parking (via ownership or private agreements) within 300 feet of
the place of public assembly; and
Not place material demands upon the on-street or public parking during
peak demand hours for retail, restaurant, and other commercial uses.
This presents a conflict in the code per the compatibility standards. In the
future, staff is planning to bring a regulation change to remove this discrepancy.
He presented an illustration showing a 300 ft. circumference around 1102 Main
St. There are 335 stalls on the street and 274 off-street parking stalls either public
or private. Areas highlighted in yellow indicates parking lots that fluctuate during
different hours.
He provided a downtown parking analysis from several days of the week
including a Saturday night on the week of February 24th. The parking analysis
shows that on Main Street from 10th to 11th Street between 10:30 a.m. and 1:00
p.m. 75% of the parking spaces were occupied. The other highest being occupied
is from Main to Oak after 6:00 p.m. for patrons of Gella’s, Paisley Pear and the
Brass Rail.
Peak Times
10:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (Lunch)
6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on East 11th St
With an average of only 39% of the 416 total parking stalls being taken during
the day, there appears to be enough parking to accommodate this use.
He pointed out that in no way are they advocating or pursuing parking
allowances on private lots. Parking allowances on private lots are completely
controlled by the owners of those lots, and whether or not they choose to allow
parking outside of regular business hours is completely up to them.
The options are:
Approve the special use permit for a “Place of Public Assembly”
Do not approve the special use permit request
The action requested is a motion to approve a “Special Use Permit” for 1102
Main Street for an allowed use of a Place of Public Assembly.
Lou Caplan asked if there was anyone in the audience that had questions
about this request.
5
Dustin Roths, applicant, came before the board and stated that he would be
happy to take any questions. He wanted to add that they have had some
discussion with Astra Bank which is just outside the 300-foot area, although just
right down the alley from the building. They are closed during most of the peak
hours when his event venue will be used so their goal will be to direct parking
their direction. The other idea is parking in the areas that house offices that are
closed during their peak hours like the courthouse parking lot. It will be less
cumbersome on the other neighboring businesses so not to take away their
parking. They do not want to make them mad. Most interested parties are
planning for their events during non-peak hours.
Rich Sieker moved, Jerry Sonntag seconded the motion to approve the
“Special Use Permit” for the allowed use for a “Place of Public Assembly” in the
“C-3 (Central Business District) at 1102 Main Street, Hays, Kansas.
Vote: AYES:
Lou Caplan, Jerry Sonntag, Rich Sieker, Brian Garrett, Russell Koenigsman
A. Public Hearing Request by Adam Pray for a Floodplain Regulation Variance
to allow substantial improvement to a historic property:
Curtis Deines provided a PowerPoint presentation on the overhead visual for a
request for a floodplain regulation variance to allow substantial improvement to a
historic property at 803 Fort Street. The building was built in 1930 and is within
the Chestnut Street Historic District.
He presented a map that showed the boundary of the Chestnut Street Historic
District. This building is a contributing building, so all changes must be approved
through the State Historical Preservation Office. Many historical properties qualify
for tax credits from the State for performing renovations and keeping them
significant to the period they were built.
He presented an illustration outlining the property that is in the floodplain. With
the proposed floodplain that will take effect sometime in 2021, a greater area will
be in the floodplain.
An elevation certificate was completed to verify the property is in the floodplain
and he showed with a picture how high the base flood elevation is compared to
the existing grade of the building. From the elevation certificate, the estimated
elevation to the proposed new floodplain base flood elevation is 3 feet; this is an
increase of 2 feet. The windowsills on the front of the building are below what
would be the new proposed base flood elevation.
He read the conditions of approval per 11.2.411 (E) (1)
Generally, variances may be issued for new construction and substantial
improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre of less in size contiguous
to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base
flood elevation, providing the following items have been fully considered:
6
1. Elevate all utilities and finished interior workings to or above the BFE
or the maximum extent possible or practically feasible
2. Use flood damage-resistant materials for interior and exterior
improvements wherever possible; and
3. Raise the interior floors to or above base flood elevation or to the
maximum extent possible
4. A full disclosure of the variance to all prospective and interested
parties.
This statement is directly from the FEMA regulations that a variance can be
issued for changes to the building for flood protection that may change the
character and design of the structures and affect the historical designation.
Conditions can be put on the property for specific requirements. Due to the
BFE being 3 feet above the existing floor level; condition 3 is not feasible.
Staff Recommendation is in favor of the variance request as submitted. The
structure is listed on the National Historic Registry and any modifications to the
building may jeopardize the designation and redevelopment of the property.
If the variance is granted, Community officials must notify the applicant that the
issuance of an elevation variance will result in increased flood insurance premium
rates and that construction below the BFE will increase risks to life and property.
He read the options:
Approve the variance as requested
Approve the variance with conditions
Do not approve the variance request
The action requested is a motion to approve the floodplain variance request for
803 Fort as submitted.
Lou Caplan asked if there were any questions from the board.
Brian Garrett asked if the City would hold any liability by approving this if
something would happen. Curtis Deines answered that all they are approving is
only the historic designation for them to go above and beyond the substantial
improvements.
The city will document that they have a flood variance. The owner would have
to maintain sufficient flood liability insurance. They are protected because they
keep the preservation going with the building. If it was not a historic building this
would be a different case to look at.
Jesse Rohr addressed the board to state some key points that a flood variance
had not come before the board for at least the last 20 years. Because this subject
property is in the historical district, FEMA says they recognize there are special
considerations of a historical property. They will provide the process and if the
process is followed and they are granted a variance, they are okay with the rest.
7
Lou Caplan asked if there were any additional questions from the board or
audience. There were none.
Brian Garrett moved; Russell Koenigsman seconded the motion to grant the
variance from floodplain regulations as submitted for 803 Fort Street, Hays, KS.
Vote: AYES:
Lou Caplan, Jerry Sonntag, Rich Sieker, Brian Garrett, Russell Koenigsman
B. Public Hearing requested by Diocese of Salina, requesting a Special Use
Permit for a cemetery in an A-L Agriculture zoned district at 1032 230th
Avenue:
Curtis Deines provided a PowerPoint presentation on the overhead visual for
the request by The Diocese of Salina, St Joseph Church, for a special use permit
to allow a cemetery within an “A-L” Agriculture zoned district located southwest of
town at 1032 230th Avenue.
In 2017, the Diocese of Salina and St Joseph’s Church in Hays obtained 28.90
acres of land located 2.5 miles southwest of Hays located within the City of Hays
Exterritorial Jurisdiction. The applicant wishes to use this location as a cemetery.
He provided a picture of the zoning in the area of the property. The property is
surrounded by Agriculture and to the east is Light Industrial.
He presented the compatibility standards in the UDC that has to be met by this
use.
The location is not near a residential district or homes and is accessed from
230th Avenue. The road is gravel and maintained by Ellis County.
He provided considerations for the cemetery. It is common to have rural
cemeteries and the location meets the requirements of the limited compatibility
standards.
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Requested as submitted.
The options are as follows:
Approve the Special use as submitted
Approve the Special use with conditions
Do not approve the Special Use Request
The action requested is a motion to approve the special use request at 1032
230th Avenue to allow a cemetery or mausoleum.
Jerry Sonntag asked if this had been discussed with the county how this may
affect the conditions of the county road. Curtis Deines answered that this had
8
been discussed with the county. The county was concerned that if there was ever
a request for a paved road, it was unlikely to happen.
Jesse Rohr answered that he had talked with the Ellis County Public Works,
Director, Bill Ring and asked him if he wanted to be present at the public hearing.
This would be his opportunity to point out any issues. He had informed them that
after discussion with the members of the church and diocese he had no concerns.
The road would be maintained as it always has been. The applicant was okay
with that as well.
Jerry Sonntag stated that Bill Ring may say that now, but if there is a lot of
traffic on a road, the use and upkeep of the road will change.
Jesse Rohr stated that this was the county’s opportunity to express concerns.
He was told they have no concerns now or in the future with the road by the
cemetery.
Jerry Sonntag moved; Rich Sieker seconded the motion to approve the special
use permit to allow a cemetery or mausoleum at 1032 230th Avenue within the “A-
L” Agriculture zoned district.
Vote: AYES:
Lou Caplan, Jerry Sonntag, Rich Sieker, Brian Garrett, Russell Koenigsman
4. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. Request for a Public Hearing by Golden Belt Bank (Charles Renz, Architect)
for a 3-foot variance to reduce the front (South) yard building setback from the
required 35 feet to 32 feet for the construction of a small addition to the south
façade at 1101 E 27th Street:
Curtis Deines provided a PowerPoint presentation on the overhead visual for
the request for a public hearing by Golden Belt Bank for a 3 foot variance to
reduce the front yard building setback from the required 35 feet to 32 feet for the
construction of a small addition to the south façade at 1101 E. 27th Street.
The current regulations allow a 25-foot front setback; although the plat requires
a 35-foot front yard building setback; thus, the reason for the request for a 3-foot
variance to the plat.
Several pictures were presented to depict what the front would look like.
He addressed each of the statutory requirements:
Uniqueness – The original plat required a different setback from what is
required today.
Adjacent Property Owners – The variance should not have an adverse
effect of the adjacent property owners; it will not change the character of
the neighborhood.
9
Hardship - The building was built on the previous setback requirements;
the new design extends into the current setback that would require a
different design that will not provide the same concept for marketing and
aesthetics they wish to achieve.
Public Health, Safety, Morals, General Welfare – If granted as proposed,
this variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals,
order, convenience, prosperity or general welfare.
Spirit and Intent of the Zoning Regulations. The granting of a variance for
the proposed building with a reduced front yard platted setback does not
oppose the general spirit and intent of the zoning regulations.
There was one similar case in the past at 2700 Canal (Good Samaritan). The
setback was reduced from 35 feet to 25 feet.
The public hearing will be set for July 8, 2020.
He asked for any questions.
Brian Garrett asked if the current setback is 25 feet. Curtis Deines answered
that the current setback per the current zoning regulations is 25 feet within the “C-
2” (Commercial General) zoning district. The previous regulations when this
property was platted was 35 feet or 75 feet from center. The required setback
must go with the most restrictive; thus, the reason for the variance.
Curtis Deines encouraged the board to go by to look at the subject property.
Lou Caplan stated that he had a comment. He stated that he understood
“Grandfathering In” non-conforming buildings when they passed new zoning laws.
He asked if it is necessary to have a public hearing in a case like this since it does
meet the new zoning laws. He asked if they could think of a case where one like
this would be denied.
Curtis Deines explained the reason is because this is a platted setback.
Jesse Rohr stated that the Unified Development Code specifically states that if
there is a discrepancy between a platted setback and the regulatory setback, the
most restrictive applies. In this case the most restrictive would be the plat at 35
feet however 25 would be allowed today. A variance is required in this case. He
agrees with Lou Caplan that he cannot think of any reason it would be denied. If
the building was leveled, they could build out with a 25-foot front yard building
setback.
Curtis Deines added that the setbacks from the prior regulations were based
off of the type of street like the arterial or collector street. With the rewrite, the
degree of setback was relaxed with the type of streets.
Lou Caplan asked if the building was razed, would they have to replat it.
Curtis Deines explained they could replat; although it would be cumbersome
when they can just request a variance.
10
B. Request for a Public Hearing by Jesse Rohr for a 2 foot variance to reduce the
side yard (east) from the required 5 feet to 3 feet and variance of 2 feet to
reduce the required separation distance between structures from 5 feet to 3
feet for the construction of a 12 foot by 24 foot detached garage/shed at 209 E
19th Street.
Curtis Deines provided a PowerPoint presentation on the overhead visual with
the information, location, and overview site for the above case on the property at
209 E. 19th Street. The owner plans to replace the existing 14-foot by 20-foot
non-conforming structure (Carport) to build a 12-foot by 24-foot structure. He
showed a picture of the location and the non-conforming structure.
He addressed each of the statutory requirements:
Uniqueness – The lot is not specifically unique to other lots in the area.
The lot does have an existing non-conforming structure on the property.
Adjacent Property Owners – The request should not have an adverse
effect of the adjacent properties. A larger structure has been there for
many years. Any new structure will be more aesthetically pleasing. The
new proposed structure is 2 feet narrower than the existing non-conforming
structure.
Hardship - The current structure is non-conforming, and any new structure
would not increase in non-conformity. Other locations in the back yard
may be available but more difficult due to utility locations.
Public Health, Safety, Morals, General Welfare – If granted as proposed,
this variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals,
order, convenience, prosperity or general welfare.
Spirit and intent of the zoning regulations. The granting of a variance for
the proposed building with a reduced front yard platted setback does not
oppose the general spirit and intent of the zoning regulations.
History
Curtis Deines explained that there had been several variance requests for side
yard and building separations. Some have been allowed out right, some with
conditions and a few denied.
The public hearing will be set for July 8, 2020.
5. OFF AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS: None
6. ADJOURNMENT
Lou Caplan adjourned the meeting at 9:00 a.m.
Submitted by Linda K. Bixenman, Administrative Assistant
11
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hays
Planning Inspection Enforcement
Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report
AGENDA ITEM: Front Setback Variance Application #04-20
ADDRESS: 1101 E. 27th St
OWNER: Golden Belt Bank, Chris Wente
TYPE OF REVIEW: Variance
PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, P. I. E. Superintendent
DATE PREPARED: June 22, 2020
MEETING DATE: July 8, 2020
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the platted front yard setback of a
commercial property from 35 ft. to 32 ft. to allow for a new front façade to extend from
the current building. Previous regulation required the front setback to be 35 ft. from
the front property line which is shown on the original plat. Staff is in favor of this
variance request.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting a platted front setback variance of the front yard:
o Front Yard – 35’ to 32’
Setback Required Applicant Proposed
Front Yard 35 ft. 32 ft.
Street Side Yard N/A N/A
Rear Yard N/A N/A
Other Structures N/A N/A
Applicant wishes to build a new front façade that will extend 3 ft. out from the
current building.
Property is located within the C-2 General Commercial District that requires a
25 ft. front setback.
Below is UDC Table 3.1.301B showing building standards for lots in various
Districts.
When the property was platted, 35 ft. was the required setback, due to the
arterial designation of 27th St. In the 2016 UDC zoning code update, the
commercial setbacks changed to make all the districts the same setback
regardless of the type of street it fronted or accessed.
If the property was platted today, a 25 ft. front setback would be allowed.
STANDARDS OF EVALUATION: (Per State Statute 12-759 and City Unified Development
Code)
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.
Page 2
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 is not specifically unique to other lots in the area.
The uniqueness is that the original plat required a different setback from what
is required today.
b. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent
property owners.
Staff Analysis: This request should not have an adverse effect of the
adjacent properties. A 3 ft. variance will not change the character of the
neighborhood.
c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship
upon the property owner.
Staff Analysis: The building was built on the previous setback requirements
and the new design extends into the current setback that would require a
different design that will not provide the same concept for marketing and
aesthetics they wish to achieve.
d. The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals,
order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare
Staff Analysis: If granted as proposed, this variance will not adversely affect
the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, 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
reduced front yard platted setback does not oppose the general spirit and
intent of the zoning regulations.
OPTIONS:
Approve variance as requested
Approve variance with conditions
Do not approve variance
Page 3
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approving the variance as submitted.
ATTACHMENTS:
Variance application
Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner
Images/Maps/Photos
Page 4
Subject Location
Subject Location
.BZ
-JOEB#JYFONBO "ENJOJTUSBUJWF"TTJTUBOU
This is a list of property owners abutting the subject property that were sent a
copy of the publication notice.
#04-2020
Property Address Parcel First Name Last Name Address City State Zip
1104 E 27th St 026-138-34-0-20-04-003.00-0 Berry Real Estate Holdings LLC 117 A Rd Grand Island NE 68801
1112 E 27th St 026-138-34-0-20-04-001.00-0 Chase Technology LC 14314 Juniper St Overland Park KS 66224
1106 E 27th St 026-138-34-0-20-04-002.00-0 James & Carolyn Johnson 1106 E 27th St Hays KS 67601
2702 Vine St 026-138-27-0-30-07-009.01-0 L & A Enterprises LLC 1710 Volga Dr, Apt A Hays KS 67601
2707 Broadway 026-138-27-0-30-08-014.00-0 Low Mach Aero LLC 2720 W 27th St Hays KS 67601
1119 E 27th St 026-138-27-0-30-07-012.00-0 MERRC LLC 1507 Henry Dr Hays KS 67601
1106 E 27th St 026-138-34-0-20-04-002.00-0 Paragon Property Group LLC 1106 E 27th St, Ste 6 Hays KS 67601
1106 E 27th St 026-138-34-0-20-04-002.00-0 RAJAM LLC 305 E 29th St Hays KS 67601
1105 E 27th St 026-138-27-0-30-08-012.00-0 Randolph D Kaiser and Danna Dalton 3910 Fairway Dr Hays KS 67601
0 Plaza Ave 026-138-27-0-30-08-010.00-0 Golden Belt Banking FSA Attention Chris Wente P O Box 931 Hays KS 67601
1101 E 27th St 026-138-27-0-30-08-011.00-0 Golden Belt Bank FSA Attention Chris Wente P O Box 931 Hays KS 67601
2706 Plaza Ave 026-138-27-0-30-08-009.00-0 James & Wanda K Fouts 3701 Thunderbird Dr Hays KS 67601
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hays
Planning Inspection Enforcement
Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report
AGENDA ITEM: Side yard and Separation Variance Application #05-20
ADDRESS: 209 E. 19th
OWNER: Jesse Rohr
TYPE OF REVIEW: Variance
PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, P. I. E. Superintendent
DATE PREPARED: June 22, 2020
MEETING DATE: July 08, 2020
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the east side yard setback from the
required 5ft. to 3 ft., a variance of 2 ft., and reduce the separation distance between
structures from 5 ft. to 3 ft., a variance of 2 ft. The applicant currently has an existing
non-conforming structure and would like to construct a slightly narrower detached
garage/structure in a similar location. Staff is in favor of this variance request.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting a side yard and building separation variance:
o Side Yard – 5’ to 3
o Building Separation - 5’ to 3’
Setback Required Applicant Proposed
Front Yard N/A N/A
Interior Side Yard 5 ft 3 ft
Rear Yard N/A N/A
Other Structures 5 ft 3 ft
Applicant wishes to construct a new detached garage/structure in a similar
location of the existing non-conforming structure that has been there for over
40 years.
The current structure is existing non-conforming. The new structure is
proposed to be farther way from the property line than the current structure.
STANDARDS OF EVALUATION: (Per State Statute 12-759 and City Unified Development
Code)
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 is not specifically unique to other lots in the area.
The lot does have an existing non-conforming structure on the property.
b. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent
property owners.
Staff Analysis: This request should not have an adverse effect of the
adjacent properties. A larger structure has been there for many years and any
new structure will be more aesthetically pleasing. The new proposed
structure is 2 ft. narrower than the existing non-conforming structure.
c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship
upon the property owner.
Staff Analysis: The current structure is non-conforming, and any new
structure would not increase in non-conformity. Other locations in the back
yard may be available but more difficult due to utility locations.
d. The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals,
order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare
Page 2
Staff Analysis: If granted as proposed, this variance should not adversely
affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, 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 a reduced side yard and
building separation setback does not oppose the general spirit and intent of
the zoning regulations.
OPTIONS:
Approve variance as submitted.
Approve variance with conditions.
Do not approve the variance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approving the variance as submitted.
ATTACHMENTS:
Variance application
Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner
Images/Maps/Photos
Page 3
05-2020
05-27-2020
May 27, 2020
50.00
Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant
Date: May 26, 2020
To: Hays Area Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Jesse Rohr
Board of Zoning Members,
I am respectfully submitting a request for a building setback variance for the
Board’s consideration for the property located at 209 E 19th St. With approval, I am
considering constructing a 12’ x 24’ garage/shed to replace an existing 14’ x 20’ carport.
The carport is several decades old and no longer serves a useful purpose. I have
explained further justification for consideration below:
1. Uniqueness: The existing 14’ x 20’ carport has been on the property for several
decades. As only the second owner of this home constructed in 1948, it can only
be assumed the original owner built the carport for an RV due to the extensive
height of the structure, therefore making it not very conducive for normal
vehicles. The roof is dilapidated and does not shed water in any desired manner.
The carport is approx. 3’ from the side property line and 3’ from another 10’ x 12’
garden shed. The proposed garage would be narrower in width by 2’ and longer
by 4’ (12’ x 24’).
2. Adjacent Property: The proposed garage will not be any closer to the adjacent
property to the east than the existing carport. The lot immediately to the east
does have a detached garage several feet from the property line, as can be seen
in the attached visual. No other adjacent properties are impacted by this
variance request.
3. Hardship: While other areas on the property were considered for construction of
a small detached garage, the proposed location is the most suitable for several
reasons. This proposed area has no underground or overhead utilities that
would interfere with placement of a structure. All utilities (gas, electric, sewer,
telecommunications) for the property are located on the western half of the
property. Also, the existing carport has a concrete drive entrance from the
concrete alley and an existing slab that may be utilized for the proposed garage.
Any other location would require a new drive approach and concrete slab/floor.
Also, due to the limited buildable width of 18’, with no approved variance the
garage width would be limited to 8’ (5’ setback from sideyard and 5’ from other
structures). 12’ is the minimal size garage that is still considered useable for
most modern vehicles. The proposed 12’ garage would be 2’ narrower than the
exiting carport.
4. Public Interest: It does not appear that removal of the existing carport and
granting of a variance for the construction of the proposed garage will have any
adverse effect on the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or
general welfare of the community or neighboring properties. It is hoped that the
garage will only enhance the aesthetics of the property and value of the property.
5. Spirit and Intent of the Zoning Regulations: The granting of the variance
desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the current zoning
regulations. The new proposed garage will not contribute to any significant
negative impacts for the subject property or adjacent properties. The garage will
be appealing, safe, and useable to its full extent if approval of a variance as
requested is granted.
Your consideration of the variance request is much appreciated. Contact me with any
questions you may have.
Jesse Rohr
Proposed 12 x 24
Garage (3' from
side)
Existing 14 x 20
Carport
209 E 19th
NORTH
This is a list of property owners abutting the subject property that were sent a
copy of the publication notice.
#05-2020
Property Address Parcel First Name Last Name Address City State Zip
206 E 20th St 026-138-33-0-40-05-004.00-0 Marian Aley Layher Living Trust 1515 Cross Creek Dr Raymore MO 64083
214 E 19th St 026-138-33-0-40-12-001.00-0 James Willard Agee Jr 2420 Sims Ct # Apt 6 Columbus IN 47203
210 E 19th St 026-138-33-0-40-12-002.00-0 Steven E & Sarah Brogden 1915 Ellis Ave Ellis KS 67637
214 E 20th Street 026-138-33-0-40-05-002.00-0 Scott R Jones 214 E 20th St Hays KS 67601
213 E 19th St 026-138-33-0-40-05-010.00-0 Michael William & Shari Rae Meredith 213 E 19th St Hays KS 67601
210 E 20th St 026-138-33-0-40-05-003.00-0 Janet L Pfannenstiel 210 E 20th St Hays KS 67601
209 E 19th St 026-138-33-0-40-05-009.00-0 Jesse Rohr 209 E 19th St Hays KS 67601
204 E 19th St 026-138-33-0-40-12-003.00-0 Earl F Ruder 204 E 19th St Hays KS 67601
205 E 19th St 026-138-33-0-40-05-008.00-0 Casey Zimmerman 205 E 19th St Hays KS 67601
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hays
Planning Inspection Enforcement
Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report
AGENDA ITEM: Front Setback Variance Application #06-20
ADDRESS: 704 E. 12th
OWNER: Mike and John Hertel
TYPE OF REVIEW: Variance
PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, P. I. E. Superintendent
DATE PREPARED: June 22, 2020
MEETING DATE: July 08, 2020
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback of a
commercial property from 35 ft. to 15 ft. to allow for a 50’ x 100’ addition from the
current building. Current regulation requires the front setback to be 35 ft. from the
front property line. Staff is in favor of this variance request.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting a front setback variance of the front yard:
o Front Yard – 35’ to 15’
Setback Required Applicant Proposed
Front Yard 35 ft. 15 ft.
Street Side Yard N/A N/A
Rear Yard N/A N/A
Other Structures N/A N/A
Applicant wishes to build a 50’ x 100’ addition within the I-1 Light Industrial
District that requires a 35 ft. front setback.
The existing buildings are closer than 35 ft. for the entire block.
Below is UDC Table 3.1.301B showing building standards for lots in various
Districts.
STANDARDS OF EVALUATION: (Per State Statute 12-759 and City Unified Development
Code)
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
Page 2
Staff Analysis: This lot is the largest lot in the 700 blk of East 12th and does
not have an alley through it. The lot is accessed from 11th or 12th St. The
front setback of 35 ft is required on 11th & 12th St side.
b. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent
property owners.
Staff Analysis: This request should not have an adverse effect of the
adjacent properties. A 20 ft. variance will not change the character of the
neighborhood as many buildings on 11th and 12th St. are on or near the front
property line as they were built under previous regulation. The building will still
be setback 15 ft. from the front property line which will be further back than the
majority in the area.
c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship
upon the property owner.
Staff Analysis: The owner has a business with large equipment and vehicles.
An addition to north is more logical than an addition to the west or separate
building on the same lot. The use of space of addition is more logical.
d. The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals,
order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare
Staff Analysis: If granted as proposed, this variance will not adversely affect
the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, 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
reduced front yard setback does not oppose the general spirit and intent of the
zoning regulations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time – Public Hearing for consideration of approval will occur on August
12, 2020.
ATTACHMENTS:
Variance application
Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner
Images/Maps/Photos
Page 3
06-2020
06/9/2020
June 9th, 2020
$50.00
Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant
Subject Property
Subject Property
Zoning map of the area
Subject Property
Yellow dot indicates buildings built on or near property line (14)
Addition Location
Subject Property 12th St
11th St
PROPOSED - 15 ft
from property line 8 ft from property line
15 ft from property
line
Addition
21 ft from property 25 ft from property
14 ft from property
line line
line
6 ft from property line
Get email alerts for Hays
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.