Board of Zoning Appeals

HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AGENDA CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1507 MAIN, HAYS, KS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2020 8:15 A.M. A. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN. B. CONSENT AGENDA. A. Minutes of the regular meeting of September 9, 2020. Action: Consider approving the minutes of the September 9, 2020 regular meeting. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. A. None D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. A. Request for Public Hearing by USD 489/Overland Property Group Stonepost Lofts Partners, LLC for a floodplain regulation variance for 305 Main St. to allow substantial improvement to a listed historic property. B. Request for Public Hearing by Hays Community Theatre for a one-foot variance of wall sign height and to allow a cabinet style wall sign within the “C-3” Central Business Zoning District at 121 East 8th St. 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 SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Hays Area Board of Zoning Appeals met for the regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 8:15 a.m. in the 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, and Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: A. MINUTES: Rich Sieker moved; Jerry Sonntag seconded the motion to approve the minutes as submitted from the August 12, 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 Miller’s of Claflin for a Sign Variance to allow 493 Square Feet of Additional Wall Signage on the North side of the Structure at 3300 Vine Street. Curtis Deines provided a PowerPoint presentation with the information, location, and site overview of the property at 3300 Vine Street, Suite 40, on the request by Miller’s of Claflin for a variance to allow additional square footage for wall signage on the north side of the building. The applicant wishes to add the signage for customers to have visibility of the business from I-70. The applicant is in the process of remodeling the northern space. The property is zoned “C-2” Commercial General District. The current sign regulations allow a maximum of 200 square feet of wall signage per façade. This is a multi-tenant building that has signage for Hobby Lobby of approximately 113 square feet on the northeast corner already installed under the previous regulations. This leaves an additional 87 square feet of signage remaining for the north façade. The applicant is proposing two different wall signs for the business located at this location. He showed the image of one proposed sign that is approximately 270 square feet and another sign proposed to be 110 square feet. 1  He explained the five statutory requirements associated with this property that must be satisfied for this variance request. History: Since 2001 there has been 6 requests for additional square feet allowed for signs. Most of them were for smaller signs less than 100 square feet total. In some cases, there were signs combined for multi-tenant signs advertising multiple businesses that reduced the number of sign structures. He read the options to consider.  Approve variance as requested  Approve variance with conditions  Do not approve variance He presented the action requested. He noted that the request would be for 380 square feet for wall signage that was less than the requested square footage. He asked for any questions and comments from the board. Brian Garrett asked if this is a request for two “Ashley Furniture” signs on the wall either small or large. Curtis Deines answered that it is total square feet. He used the example of having 10 small signs within the total square footage. The variance request is for total square footage for two signs. Lou Caplan noted that this building has a unique location; one side of the building faces Vine Street and the other side faces Interstate. He asked if they could have signs on both sides of the building. Curtis Deines answered “yes” as per the regulations that state “per façade”. The north side is the most visible from the three sides. He used the example of Tebo Village that is constructed with an “L-Shape” that curves around. It has exposure to General Hays with that façade having signage on it. Brian Garrett noted that with three businesses in that building, he asked if they would be getting a request from the odd one out (Ace Hardware) for signage on the north wall. Curtis Deines answered that is always a possibility. Although they already have signage on the property and a pole sign closer to Vine Street. Brian Garrett asked if in the motion they could limit the total square footage of signage to 200 square feet per facade on the side of the building since Ace Hardware may request a sign down the road. He pointed out to have something to state not to exceed 200 square feet of signage on the north side for each. Curtis Deines answered, yes. If the board wanted to decide to meet some similar criteria for consistency or something of that nature, that is something they could state in the motion. 2  Jerry Sonntag asked Brian Garrett if his recommendation was each façade would not be able to exceed 200 square feet. Brian Garrett answered that is his thought. Jerry Sonntag stated that if they approve what is requested, it would be less than that. Curtis Deines stated that the two proposed signs are estimated at 380 square feet total. Braden Miller, representative for the applicant, came before the Board to explain they would be happy to reduce the sign of “Furniture Clearance Center” to 200 square feet and stay at 110 square feet for the other sign “Ashley Home Store Distribution Center”. They had already been talking about reducing that sign. Jerry Sonntag stated that he had no problem with the proposed signs because they are fine looking signs. More of the space is wall space. Lou Caplan noted that at looking at the sign compared to the entire wall, it does not appear that big. Jerry Sonntag asked if the color was taken out of the sign, if it would be less square footage. Curtis Deines answered that it would depend how the sign is made; if it is one piece or individual letters. It could cover a bigger footprint and still be 200 square feet. Rich Sieker noted with the color it catches the eye. Lou Caplan stated that he liked the signs better than the bare wall. Jerry Sonntag agreed. Lou Caplan asked for any further discussion. There was none. He entertained a motion. Rich Sieker moved; Jerry Sonntag seconded the motion to approve the variance as submitted to allow an additional 380 square feet of wall signage on the north wall at 3300 Vine Street, Suite 40 based on the consideration that it does meet the five statutory requirements. Curtis Deines asked if the motion is approval for the variance as submitted. Rich Sieker answered the motion is for approval of the variance as submitted by the applicant. Jerry Sonntag then seconded the motion as shown above. Vote: AYES: Lou Caplan, Jerry Sonntag, Rich Sieker, Brian Garrett, Russell Koenigsman Braden Miller thanked the board. 4. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. 5. OFF AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS: A. Wall Signage: 3  Lou Caplan asked if there has been any consideration for changes in the wall sign regulations for another situation like this one that would arise where there are multiple businesses in the same place. Curtis Deines answered that typically this situation will not come up much more because a wall sign that is not part of the façade or rear of the building would not be allowed. The Hobby Lobby wall sign was put on before the current regulations. It does not fit today’s regulations. This would be considered an off- premise sign. There cannot be any off-premise signs. Brian Garrett asked what if the three tenants wish to each have a wall sign on the south side of the building. Curtis Deines answered that they couldn’t do that because it does not meet the intention of the regulations. Brian Garrett asked about Big Creek Crossing. Curtis Deines answered the mall has interior tenants, and they would have to look at that. Jerry Sonntag pointed out that the owners of the building would have control over this. Curtis Deines answered they could if they so choose. 6. ADJOURNMENT Lou Caplan adjourned the meeting at 8:31 a.m. Submitted by Linda K. Bixenman, Administrative Assistant 4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Floodplain Regulation Variance Request ADDRESS: 305 Main St. OWNER: USD 489 / OPG Stonepost Lofts Partners, LLC TYPE OF REVIEW: Floodplain Regulation Variance Request PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, P. I. E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: October 1, 2020 MEETING DATE: October 14, 2020 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a variance from floodplain regulations that will allow substantial improvements to the property at 305 Main St. so it may be used for multi- family housing. Per floodplain regulations, a property owner is limited to only spending 50% of the appraised value of the structure for substantial improvements before being required to make the structure compliant with floodplain regulations. In September, OPG Stonepost Lofts Partners applied to the National Park Service to have the structure at 305 Main St. be recognized as a historic structure. This will not only allow the new owners to take advantage of financial incentives but will make the renovations possible since nationally registered buildings do not have to meet the same floodplain requirements as those not historically recognized. Staff recommends approval contingent upon the structure being approved to be on the National Historic Registry, which is pending approval at this time. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a variance from floodplain regulations that will allow substantial improvements to the property for the former Washington school to be renovated into apartments. Washington school has been located on this property since 1925. There was an addition in 1994. The building is several feet below what the base flood elevation is. Recently USD 489 has agreed to sell the property to OPG Stonepost Lofts Partners who plans to renovate the building into apartments. This project was selected by the State of Kansas to receive funding through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. In September, OPG Stonepost Lofts Partners submitted an application to the National Park Service to request the structure be recognized as a national historic structure. If approved as a listed historic structure, this will allow the new owners to take advantage of financial incentives to make the renovation possible, and will allow construction to take place without having to meet full FEMA floodplain requirements, if a variance is granted by the BZA. Within the FEMA’s regulations, nationally registered historic buildings do not have to meet the same requirements especially if any work may affect the historic designation. Therefore, the property owner is requesting the variance to allow full renovation without consideration of the floodplain designation. STANDARDS OF EVALUATION: (Per City Unified Development Code) Approval Criteria. In passing upon such application for variances, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall consider all technical data and evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in Article 9.3, Flood Damage Prevention, and the following criteria (11.2.411): 1. Danger to life and property due to flood damage. Staff Analysis: This property was built in 1925 prior to any flood regulations. This property is located near the levee that was constructed prior to the flood of 1957. The building does have a basement which will not be used for apartments at this time and may require analysis if desired in the future. 2. Danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to injury of others. Staff Analysis: The building is a block/brick building and the interior items would more than likely not be swept out causing issue with other areas. 3. Susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents of flood damage and the effects of such damage on the individual owner. Staff Analysis: 305 Main St is located near the levee and is estimated to be 5 ft. below the base flood elevation. If flood waters exceed the capacity of the levee, the entire area will have flood damage. The levee has shown to provide protection for large flooding events. 4. Importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. Staff Analysis: The proposed apartments continue to allow affordable options for citizens and young families in the City of Hays. Development of residential apartments near our downtown is beneficial to sustainment of this area of town. 5. Necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable Staff Analysis: This situation is N/A.  Page 2  6. Availability of alternative locations, not subject to flood damage, for the propose use. Staff Analysis: The developer/owner has developed 3 other locations near this location, with all of them being in the floodplain, and this is logical for development even though it’s located within the floodplain. This location and building are unique and may not be able to be renovated without being listed on the Historic Registry and an approved variance from the BZA. 7. Compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development. Staff Analysis: The use proposed is compatible with the area and will enhance the neighborhood of continued multi-family development. 8. Relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and floodplain management program for that area. Staff Analysis: This use does conform to the Comprehensive Plan and the proposal will have little if any effect on the floodplain management program. 9. Safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary emergency vehicles. Staff Analysis: Access to this property is very accessible to the public and emergency vehicles, even in times of street flooding. 10. Expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters, if applicable, expect at the site Staff Analysis: N/A 11. Costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems; streets, and bridges. Staff Analysis: This location does not have any public infrastructure located on it. All services are private, and any costs incurred would be the responsibility of the property owner. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time – Public Hearing for consideration of approval will occur on November 4, 2020. ATTACHMENTS:  Variance application  Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner  Images/Maps/Photos  Page 3  08-2020 09-28-2020 September 28, 2020 50.00 Linda K. Bixenman, Administrative Assistant 2. The applicant shall submit a statement, in writing, justifying the variance requested, indicating specifically the enforcement provisions of the Zoning Regulations from which the variance is requested, and outlining, in detail, the manner in which it is believed that this application will meet each of the conditions, as set out by Hays, KS Unified Development Code Article 9.3, Flood Damage Prevention as listed below. 1. Danger to life and property due to flood damage; 2. Danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; 3. Susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents of flood damage and the effects of such damage on the individual owner; 4. Importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; 5. Necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; (N/A) 6. Availability of alternative locations, not subject to flood damage, for the proposed use; 7. Compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; 8. Relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and floodplain management program for that area; 9. Safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; 10. Expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters, if applicable, expected at the site; and (N/A) 11. Costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems; streets; and bridges. (N/A) OPG Stonepost Lofts Partners, LLC is confident its ability to adhere to all criteria as set out by Hays, KS Unified Development Code Article 9.3, Flood Damage Prevention. There is no perceived danger to life and property due to flood damage. The existing historic building has been an operating school for nearly 100 years, beginning in 1926, without incident. The existing structure is concrete and heavy masonry, so there is very minimal danger that materials may be swept onto the other lands to the injury of others. In its 94 years of operation, there has been no flood damage to the building, indicating that there is no susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents of flood damage. There is importance of the services provided by the proposed development to the community of Hays in that we are simultaneously able to save this historic building while repurposing it to provide needed housing. This will greatly benefit the community, while remaining consistent with adjacent properties. The proposed use of housing is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, adjacent properties, and meets the needs of the community. This development is in a fully established area, with safe & ready access to the property and emergency vehicles.  305 Main St. Estimated BFE THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Sign Variance Application #09-20 ADDRESS: 121 E. 8th St. OWNER: Hays Community Theatre TYPE OF REVIEW: Variance for Wall Sign PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, P. I. E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: September 30, 2020 MEETING DATE: October 14, 2020 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION: An application for a variance has been submitted for the property at 121 E. 8th St. The variance as submitted is a two-part variance request regarding signage for the property. The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the size height of a sign as well as a request to allow a cabinet style sign within a C-3 zoned district at 121 E. 8th St. Section 7.2.400 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) contains the Special Area Sign Standards that are specific to the downtown area and properties within the Chestnut Street District within the C-3 Zoning District. Based on the facts in this memo, staff does support this request to set a public hearing for consideration of the variance request. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a one-foot variance in height of a wall sign to allow for a 30-inch tall wall sign. The UDC regulations limit the height of wall signs to 18 inches within the C-3 District. The second part of the variance is to allow a cabinet style sign within a C-3 zoned district. The UDC regulations prohibit cabinet style signs within the C-3 zoning district. As stated in the adopted UDC (Sec. 7.2.401), the Central Business (C-3) District, "Downtown", is the symbolic center of the community, which is conducive to a pedestrian environment. Signs help to convey an image and communicate a message of businesses, which also contribute significantly to the character and visual harmony of Downtown Hays. Therefore, signs in Downtown must be pedestrian-scaled and be of an artistic quality and creative design to reinforce the aesthetic integrity of the area. In addition, the regulations of this Section and elsewhere within this Code, the design of signs within the Central Business (C-3) District that are also within the Chestnut Street Historic District shall be subject to review by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The standards set out in this section are to implement this vision. As you can see from the above statement within the UDC, there are several variables that can make this challenging. Central Business (C-3) District, Downtown, and the Chestnut Street Historical District all come into play. Some properties fall within all three (C-3, downtown, and historic) categories while others only fall within one or two of the categories. The C-3 Zoning District itself is much larger than the historical district. When the historic district was created, this downtown area was evaluated and the properties within the historic district were identified to be unique to that period. The subject property (121 E. 8th St.) does not have the features to meet the criteria to be listed as historic. So, in many cases, the overall C-3 zoning district regulations are more restrictive to businesses that do not have to meet the same criteria as the listed historic structures, however many of the regulations were written to conform to the desires of the Chestnut Street Historic District. 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: The building itself was built in 1925 and is not listed within the Chestnut Street Historic District. When looking at the visuals in the Special Area Sign Standards of the UDC, the building does NOT have features similar to the historic buildings this would typically apply to.  Page 2  b. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners. Staff Analysis: 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: Current C-3 sign regulations are written more for historic structures and therefore prohibits and limits the size of wall signs within the entire C-3 zoning district. Even though the building is not considered historic, it is required to follow similar regulations limiting what they are allowed to do with signage. 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. e. The granting of the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the regulations because the special area regulations are written more to address the Historic properties rather than the non- historic or general businesses within the C-3 District. Staff Analysis: Granting the variance request will not oppose the general spirit and intent of the regulations. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time – Public Hearing for consideration of approval will occur on November 4, 2020. ATTACHMENTS:  Variance application  Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner  Images/Maps/Photos  Page 3  HCT C-3 Zoning Historical District  09-2020 09-28-2020 is a 12 inch variance of wall sign height and to allow a cabinet style sign within a C-3 Zoned District where they are prohibited. To allow a 30 inch tall cabinet style wall sign within a September 28, 2020 50.00 Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant