Board of Zoning Appeals

HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AGENDA CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1507 MAIN, HAYS, KS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2021 8:15 A.M. A. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN. B. CONSENT AGENDA. A. Minutes of the regular meeting of February 10, 2021. Action: Consider approving the minutes of the February 10, 2021 regular meeting. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. A. None D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. A. Request for Public Hearing by Ellis County for a special use permit for a construction and demolition landfill within the “P-I” Public Institutional Zoning District on the property at 55th Street/240th Avenue located at 1515 W. 55th Street. B. Request for Public Hearing by Brian M. Ralph for a two foot (2’) variance from the required five feet (5’) to three feet (3’) to reduce the east side yard building setback for a detached garage at 203 W. 37th Street. C. Request for Public Hearing by BJ & Dena Rupp for a variance for two (2) additional signs; one (1) on the north side and one (1) on the south side of their building located at 1007 Vine 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 FEBRUARY 10, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Hays Area Board of Zoning Appeals met for the regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 8:15 a.m. in the Commission Chambers at City Hall. 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: Jesse Rohr, Director of Public Works, Curtis Deines, Superintendent of Planning, Inspection, and Enforcement, and Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant. Others in Attendance, John Bird, Attorney for the City of Hays, Toby Dougherty, City Manager, Collin Bielser, Assistant City Manager 2. CONSENT AGENDA: A. MINUTES: Jerry Sonntag moved; Russell Koenigsman seconded the motion to approve the minutes as submitted from the January 13, 2021 meeting. Vote: AYES: Lou Caplan, Jerry Sonntag, Rich Sieker, Brian Garrett, Russell Koenigsman 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. Request for Public Hearing by Jesse Zimmerman for a five foot (5’) variance in height of an accessory structure; an increase from the allowable twenty-one feet (21’) to twenty-six feet (26’) at 2901 Cottonwood Lane. Curtis Deines thanked everyone for coming. He informed the audience and Commission that Bud Dalton would be participating by polycom for the meeting. He is a nearby property owner to the subject property. Curtis Deines provided a PowerPoint presentation about the case. The applicant has a tall single-story ranch style home with a roof that is 21 foot above grade and requests a taller garage than what is allowed by regulation. The allowed detached structure per regulation would be twenty-one feet. The regulation allows an 18 foot detached structure or the height of the primary dwelling whichever is greater. The applicant could construct a garage that is twenty-one feet in height. He explained that the garage would meet the setbacks. This variance is specific to the height only. 1 He showed a picture of the home with the existing detached structure that he plans to replace with the proposed structure. He explained that along Cottonwood Lane there are different styles of homes in the neighborhood. From 27th to 32nd Street; five out of thirteen homes are 2 story or taller. The lot size for this area is larger than the standard lots in Hays. There are many mature trees in the area that provide a natural buffer between property lines. He showed an image of the proposed structure and two examples of the proposed style. The roof on the taller portion is 3:12 pitch. The applicant is concerned of the aesthetics of the neighborhood; therefore, he wants a nice looking structure. He provided the current regulation as stated in the Unified Development Code for garage height. He explained the information on the five statutory requirements associated with this request. History In March 2019, a variance case was approved for 3314 Thunderbird Drive for an increase in height from 18 feet to 22 feet. He showed a picture of the structure that was built. This is the only history of this type of request since the regulations were changed in 2018. He explained that staff does not support this request based on it does not meet the five statutory requirements. He listed the options to the board. He asked if there were any questions. Lou Caplan asked if there were any questions from the board. There were none at this time. Lou Caplan asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak to this case. Jesse Zimmerman, property owner of 2901Cottonwood Lane, came before the board to explain his request for a five foot height variance for the proposed structure that would replace the existing detached structure. This property is located on a private street, not a public street. They have planned for the proposed garage since they took ownership in 2015. After visiting with Jesse Rohr in 2017 when Mr. Rohr was the Planning, Inspection and Enforcement Superintendent, he was informed that there were some changes in setbacks that were in the works. They decided to hold out until the regulations came through. Along with the change to a standard five foot setback, there was a height regulation change. He pointed out that per the history, there was one 2 request for a height variance, and it had passed since the change in the regulations. There have been other tall garages and RV structures put up before this height regulation was adopted. One of these was four houses to the west at 2901 Walnut with a total height of 21 feet with the primary dwelling well under 18 feet. He noted the case where the height variance was passed. The detached structure was 30 foot wide with 16 foot sidewalls and a 4:12 pitched roof that needed a four foot height variance. The proposed structure he is presenting is 41 foot wide with a 3:12 pitched roof that puts the total height of the structure at 25 ½ feet tall. He stated that if he were to use a 9:12 pitch roof, it would put the height at 32 ½ feet tall which is unappealing and inefficient in design. There are a few reasons for the design of this structure. The number one reason is visual appeal. The design presented to the board would eliminate a steel shed- like or pole barn appearance. Adding a 4 foot sidewall height and lowering the roof pitch would allow to have windows and balcony above the garage door. Another reason for this design is standard new construction interior garage ceiling height is 10 to 12 feet. He is using an 11 foot ceiling height which would allow for useable space above the first floor. It would give the second story ceiling height 8 feet. The proposed structure would meet the requirement for the setbacks from the property lines. To the north of this structure is a natural buffer of fifty to fifty- five-foot pine trees. The adjacent property owners homes on Cottonwood; two to the north and one to the south will not be affected since the total principle dwelling height is above 32 feet for those homes. This structure will have visual characteristics that will tie to the principle dwelling. He asked if there were any questions for him. There were none at this time. Monte Quick, property owner at 2707 Cottonwood Lane, came before the board stating he was there to support the variance. David Van Doren came before the board to state that he was familiar with the description of the project and he is also familiar with the neighborhood’s protective covenants that were put in place 60 years ago. As far as he can see, it does not allow a commercial structure like this in this neighborhood. He thought it was important that this be taken into account. He believes there will be some neighborhood enforcement of the protective covenants. He asked for questions. Curtis Deines asked Bud Dalton if he had any comments. Bud Dalton answered that everything is clear. He understands exactly what is going on. He was for the Neighborhood Protective Covenants. He stated that he thought it would damage the neighborhood drastically to have metal buildings going up. Jerry Sonntag asked the applicant to provide more detail what he is going to put on this building and how it is going to look. He thought there may be some confusion if it is a commercial building. 3 Jesse Zimmerman came before the board to clarify on the visual appeal that the design presented is to get away from the steel structure of the building. Jerry Sonntag asked if he looked into those Neighborhood Protective Covenants that Mr. Van Doren was talking about. Jesse Zimmerman answered that he was not aware of any covenants when he purchased his home. It is not going to be a commercial building. It is a residential building for personal use to house an RV and vehicles. He stated that this is a private street that they take care of the street and repairs. He is not aware of any covenants. Lou Caplan asked if he had looked into a structure that would be twenty-one feet in height that could possibly store your RV. Jesse Zimmerman answered that he had looked into many designs to try to meet his needs and try to accommodate. Other options would also require a variance. The roof on his house has a 9:12 pitch. He noted the pictures of his house that were presented in the presentation to show the top of the second story of the house where the 9:12 pitch of roof had been eliminated to make it a flat roof. If the 9:12 pitch roof would continue, it would add seven feet to the height of the house which would easily accommodate the structure that he is asking for. Brian Garrett asked the height of his RV. Mr. Zimmerman answered that it is just under 13 feet. There would have to be a 14 foot garage door. Jerry Sonntag asked Mr. Van Doren more about the Neighborhood Restrictive Covenants if they would restrict a building like this. Mr. Van Doren explained the neighborhood protective covenants were put in place for this development 60 years ago and still in effect. They are enforceable by the homeowners in the development. He read from the covenants: “No lot shall be used except for residential purposes”. “No building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached single family dwelling.” There are other stipulations as well. Jerry Sonntag asked if the existing detached structure that he plans to remove was not permitted per the covenants. Mr. Van Doren answered possibly. It does match the house in design and materials. Jerry Sonntag asked if there were any other homes with detached structures on that street. Jesse Zimmerman answered that there were at least three. John Bird, Attorney for the City of Hays, explained to the board that they could not enforce the Restrictive Covenants; the enforcement is among the owners; although they can be taken into account if they are a factor. 4 Jesse Zimmerman stated that this will not be a commercial structure; it is strictly residential and will only house one detached structure since he will remove the existing detached structure to replace with the new one. Jesse Zimmerman suggested that he could drop the structure a foot; dropping the 8 foot ceiling height to 7 feet in the second story for one foot less in variance but still have the use of the space. Lou Caplan pointed out that without the second story, the structure could be built to house the RV. Jesse Zimmerman answered that with a 16 foot side wall, there would not be a second story. With a 3:12 pitch, the height would still be at 22 feet which would require him to have a variance. With a 9:12 pitch, the height would be 32 ½ feet. If he eliminates the second story, he will still need a variance of a foot. He said that is the reason why the owner of the property on Thunderbird Drive needed a similar request as well. Brian Garrett asked Mr. Zimmerman if he considered a 20 foot side wall with a single slope roof. Mr. Zimmerman answered that is an idea; although back to square one what is aesthetically visually appealing. He is trying to add some depth and breakup garage doors. He believes the ordinance was put in place for visual appeal. They have worked through many structural designs to try to eliminate the shed like appearance. Lou Caplan read a document from the Board of Zoning Appeals “Guide to Members and the Public Factors to consider in reaching a Decision on a Variance Request”. This included the five statutory requirements. If any one of the five statutory requirements have not been met; the variance cannot be granted. John Bird, City Attorney, stated that it would be helpful if they would ask the property owner what the uniqueness of the property is that forces him to have to ask for a variance and what would be the hardship of not granting the variance. He stated that as he listens to this today, it occurred that what he is telling you is, (maybe), that the hardship arises out of the RV purchase and not the property. It would be helpful for Mr. Zimmerman to address the three points, the uniqueness of the property, the hardship, and was his position created voluntarily by his choice of vehicle that dictated the type of building to violate the zoning code. He would like that in the record. He pointed out that they have heard from City Staff that they do not believe this applies. The applicant has a right to provide evidence. Jesse Zimmerman stated that his property is a double lot size. Since the regulations have changed for setbacks from 10% of the lot width to the standard five foot setback, it allows the structure to be 11 feet closer to the property line. The hardship is that the principal dwelling is a two story home, although a section of it is a flat rubber roof. They did not continue the 9:12 pitched roof which could easily be done at a later date to accommodate the height of the proposed structure. They keep the RV at home in the driveway and it would help the visual appeal if they could keep the RV and the vehicles in the structure. 5 John Bird stated that if he was asking questions, he would ask when they purchased the RV and if he had considered buying a smaller RV so could accommodate a building within the code and not ask for a variance. Jesse Zimmerman answered that the average height of an RV is 11 to 13 feet range. There is no way around it because they travel a lot. They purchased their first RV in 2010 and replaced it in 2017; both in that height range. He explained that another city has regulations that an RV cannot be visibly setting on a property for more than two days. He wanted to get ahead of this situation before Hays follows suit so he could house the RV in a detached structure on the property. Jerry Sonntag asked Curtis Deines if he added five foot to his roof if he could build this structure without a variance. Curtis Deines answered yes that the height of the structure could be the height of his house. Lou Caplan asked for further questions. There were none. Lou Caplan entertained a motion. 1st Motion failed due to lack of second to the motion: Jerry Sonntag moved to grant the five foot (5’) variance in height for an accessory structure, an increase from the allowable twenty-one feet (21’) to twenty-six (26’) at 2901 Cottonwood Lane based on that it does meet the five statutory requirements because it is a two story house that part of it is a flat roof. Lou Caplan asked if he was going to add that the house has to be remodeled so to meet the requirement. Jerry Sonntag stated that it would be a moot point and we would not be talking about this. The motion died for lack of a second to the motion. 2nd Motion Brian Garrett moved; Russell Koenigsman seconded the motion to disapprove the requested variance for the height to exceed the primary dwelling by five feet (5’) to build an accessory building at 2901 Cottonwood Lane based on not meeting the five statutory requirements, particularly he did not believe the hardship was because of the property, and he did not believe the property is unique since there are very similar properties along the street. Vote: AYES: Lou Caplan, Rich Sieker, Brian Garrett, Russell Koenigsman 6  Nay: Jerry Sonntag Jesse Rohr explained that any party on either side that are aggrieved by this decision does have 30 days to appeal this case to the District Court per State Statute. 4. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: - None 5. OFF AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS: None Curtis Deines stated there will be several cases next month. 6. ADJOURNMENT Lou Caplan adjourned the meeting at 8:48 a.m. Submitted by Linda K. Bixenman, Administrative Assistant 7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Special Use Permit Application ADDRESS: 1515 W. 55th OWNER: Ellis County TYPE OF REVIEW: Special Use Permit for a Construction and Demolition Landfill PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, P.I.E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: February 16, 2021 AGENDA DATE: March 10, 2021 Summary An application has been submitted by Ellis County for a special use request for a construction and demolition landfill at 1515 W. 55th St. The current landfill is getting close to capacity for construction and demolition debris and more land is needed to continue the service. In September of 2020, the rezoning of this property to “P-I” Public and Institutional District was approved. Staff feels that the request is reasonable and will not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding properties. Background An application has been submitted by Ellis County for a special use request for a construction and demolition landfill at 1515 W. 55th St. Ellis County has operated the current landfill for many years and meets all KDHE requirements. The current landfill is getting close to capacity for construction and demolition debris and more land is needed to continue the service. Ellis County has purchased the property to the north of the current landfill and would like to expand the location of the construction and demolition area. In September of 2020, the rezoning of this property to “P-I” Public and Institutional District was approved. Landfills are listed under “P-I” as a special use and require notification to adjacent property owners, a public hearing, and specific conditions to be met. Ellis County has agreed to meet the conditions required in the UDC for a landfill. STANDARDS OF EVALUATION: Per State Statute 12-759 (e) and City Ordinance UDC Sec. 11.2.408 In taking into consideration applications for a special use permit, the BZA shall give consideration to the comprehensive zoning plan, the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the community, including, but not limited to, the following factors:  The stability and integrity of the various zoning districts  Conservation of property values  Protection against fire and casualties  Observation of general police regulations  Prevention of traffic congestion  Promotion of traffic safety and the orderly parking of motor vehicles  Promotion of the safety of individuals and property  Provision for adequate light and air  Prevention of overcrowding and excessive intensity of land uses  Provision for public utilities  Invasion by inappropriate uses  Value, type and character of existing or authorized improvements and land use  Encouragement of improvements and land uses in keeping with overall planning  Provision for orderly and proper urban renewal, development and growth By ordinance, the BZA does have the authority to impose certain restrictions, conditions, terms, time limitations, landscaping, and other appropriate safeguards to protect adjoining property. Recommended Action None at this time – Public Hearing for consideration of approval will occur on April 14, 2021. Supporting Documentation Special Use Permit Application Statement of Justification from Owner Maps of Area  Page 2  Located on 240th Ave North of W 55th Subject Location 55th St 55th St 240th Ave Subject Location  02-2021 01-26-2021 1 of 3 February 2, 2021 50.00 Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant  02-2021 01-26-2021 2 of 3 2021 February 2 50.00 Linda Bixenman, Adminstrative Assistant  02-2021 01-26-2021 3 of 3 February 2, 2021 50.00 Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant Parcel Details for 026-134-17-0-00-00-002.00-0 Owner Information Owner's Name KARLIN SUSAN M REV INTER VIVOS TR (Primary): Mailing Address: 1963A Emmeram Rd Hays, KS 67601-9428 Owner's Name: ELLIS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Mailing Address: PO Box 720 Hays, KS 67601-0720 Owner's Name: KARLIN JOHN A REV INTER VIVOS TR Mailing Address: 1963A Emmeram Rd Hays, KS 67601-9428 Property Address Address: 0 240th Ave Hays, KS 67601 Neighborhood / Tract Information Neighborhood: 049 - Rural Tract: Section: 17 Township: 13 Range: 18 Tract Description: S17, T13, R18, ACRES 180.2, S2 NE4 & N2 SE4 & N 340(S) S2 SE4 LESS RD R/W Acres: 180.20 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Side Yard Variance Application #03-21 ADDRESS: 203 W. 37th Street OWNER: Brian Ralph TYPE OF REVIEW: Side Yard Setback Variance PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, P. I. E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: February 23, 2021 MEETING DATE: March 10, 2021 Summary The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the east side yard setback for a detached garage from the required 5ft. to 3 ft., a variance of 2 ft. to allow a more adequate distance, 6ft., from an existing screened porch. Staff is in favor of this variance request if the variance criteria can be met. Background  The applicant is requesting a side yard variance: o Side Yard – 5 ft. to 3 ft. 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 6 ft  Applicant wishes to construct a new 18 ft. by 24 ft. detached garage in the proposed location to allow for adequate distance from an existing screened porch. There is a pool on the west portion of the backyard and deck that extends from the house. 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. Lot is a typical lot for the block and is a standard shape and size. The lot does have an inground pool on west side of the lot. 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. 3 ft. allows separation between his proposed building and fence separating the adjacent property. c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner. Staff Analysis: The proposed area where the structure would be built is the only area in the back yard where the structure could be built. Other locations in the back yard are taken up by an in-ground pool, screened porch, and fire pit area. Size may be adjusted to make the structure compliant with separation between the house and side yard. 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 should not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, 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: The granting of a variance for a reduced side 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 April 14, 2021. Supporting Documentation Variance application Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner Images/Maps/Photos  Page 3 West 37th St  03-2021 01-27-2021 Lot 8, Block 4 Skyline 5th Addition & Rep Blk 9 NC.2 Single Family January 27, 2021 50.00 Linda K Bixenman, Administrative Assistant Proposed Structure 026-138-28-0-10-03-016.00-0 Owner Information Owner's Name RALPH, BRIAN M & JACQUELINE L (Primary): Mailing Address: 203 W 37th St Hays, KS 67601 Property Address Address: 203 W 37th St Hays, KS 67601 Neighborhood / Tract Information Neighborhood: 014 - Hays Block: 04 Lot: 008 Tract: Section: 28 Township: 13 Range: 18 Tract Description: SKYLINE 5TH ADD & REP BLK 9 , BLOCK 04 , Lot 008 , SECTION 28 TOWNSHIP 13 RANGE 18 Acres: 0.00 Market Acres: 0.00 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Sign Variance Application #04-21 ADDRESS: 1007 Vine Street OWNER: BJ & Dena Rupp TYPE OF REVIEW: Variance PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, P. I. E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: February 15th, 2021 MEETING DATE: March 10th, 2021 Summary The applicants are requesting a variance to be able to place a new sign on the north side of the building and a new sign on the south 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 applicants wish to make sure customers have visibility of their business from both northbound and southbound Vine St. Staff supports approving the variance. Background The applicants have recently opened a new business at 1007 Vine 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 applicants would like to place one painted sign on the north side and one painted sign on the south side for visibility to northbound and southbound Vine St. Previous tenants of the building have had signs on the north and south side of the building. The applicants have been approved for a sign on the front facade of the building. The sign on the front will be a painted sign like the proposed signs for the north and south side. Current regulation for attached wall signs for an I-1 Light Industrial 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. Previous tenants of the building were approved via permits for signs on the north side of the building, prior to current UDC regulations. 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: Only having a sign on the front does limit visibility of potential customers that would not normally see it until they were past the location. Previous tenants of the building were approved via permits for signs on the north side of the building. 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 None at this time – Public Hearing for consideration of approval will occur on April 14, 2021. Supporting Documentation Variance application Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner Images/Maps/Photos  Page 3  Applicant Doerfler Investments LLC - Owner Hays, Kansas 67601 Lots 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 & W 16 feet Lot 30, Block 6, Cochran Addition to the City of Hays, Kansas. Doerfler  Proposed Sign Location Proposed Sign Location  Parcel Details for 026-182-04-0-10-10-001.00-0 Owner Information Owner's Name DOERFLER INVESTMENTS LLC (Primary): Mailing Address: 1102 Oakmont St Hays, KS 67601 Property Address Address: 1007 Vine St Hays, KS 67601 Neighborhood / Tract Information Neighborhood: 512 - Hays Block: 06 Tract: Section: 04 Township: 14 Range: 18 Tract Description: COCHRAN ADDITION , BLOCK 06 , LOTS 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 & W 16 LOT 30 SECTION 04 TOWNSHIP 14 RANGE 18 Acres: 0.39 Market Acres: 0.39