Board of Zoning Appeals

HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AGENDA CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1507 MAIN, HAYS, KS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 8:15 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN. 2. CONSENT AGENDA. A. Minutes of the regular meeting of August 11, 2021. Action: Consider approving the minutes of the August 11, 2021 regular meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. A. Public Hearing request by Dwight and Michelle Wagoner for a 3 ½ foot variance to reduce the south side yard building setback from the required 7 feet to 3 ½ feet to construct a carport at 2918 Barclay Drive, Hays, KS. Action: Consider approving the 3 ½ foot variance to construct a carport at 2918 Barclay Drive, Hays, KS. 4. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. A. Request for a Public Hearing by Wes Rathbun for a variance for a wall sign to be over the allowed square footage at 109 W. 7th Street. B. Request for a Public Hearing by Thomas & Christine Wasinger for a 7-foot variance to reduce the side yard building setback from 7 feet to 0 feet at 302 E. 24th Street. 5. OFF-AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS: None 6. ADJOURNMENT: Any person with a disability and needing special accommodations to attend this meeting should contact the Planning, Inspection and Enforcement office (785-628-7310) 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.  DRAFT MINUTES HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMISSION CHAMBERS IN CITY HALL AUGUST 11, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Hays Area Board of Zoning Appeals met for the regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, August 11, 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 and Brian Garrett Absent: Russell Koenigsman City Staff in attendance: Jesse Rohr, Director of Public Works, Curtis Deines, Superintendent of Planning, Inspection, and Enforcement, Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant, and Collin Bielser, Assistant City Manager. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: A. MINUTES: Jerry Sonntag moved; Rich Sieker seconded the motion to approve the minutes as submitted from the June 9th, 2021, meeting. Vote: AYES: Lou Caplan, Jerry Sonntag, Rich Sieker and Brian Garrett 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None 4. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. Request for a Public Hearing by Dwight and Michelle Wagoner for a 3 ½ foot variance to reduce the south side yard building setback from the required 7 feet to 3 ½ feet to construct a structure at 2918 Barclay Dr. Hays, Kansas. Curtis Deines provided a PowerPoint presentation of the applicant’s request for a 3 ½ foot variance. The variance as requested would reduce the south side yard building setback from the required 7 feet to 3 ½ feet to allow for the construction of a 38’ by 16’ carport. The home is 18 feet 3 inches from the property line. If built to the 7-foot setback, the carport would be too narrow for a vehicle. The carport’s south side wall would remain open, while the east side will have a wall containing storage space and will be able to block snow from blowing inside. Curtis Deines stated that the five statutory requirements were to be satisfied for the approval. He explained each of them associated with this case. History: There have been six side yard variance requests since 2017. The requests vary from a reduction of 5 feet, to all the way to the property line. Three feet from the property line is the most common request. He asked for questions. There were none. 1  The public hearing will be held September 8, 2021. 5. OFF AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS: A. None 6. ADJOURNMENT Lou Caplan adjourned the meeting at 8:19 a.m. Submitted by Linda K. Bixenman, Administrative Assistant 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Side Yard Variance Application #08-21 ADDRESS: 2918 Barclay OWNER: Dwight & Michelle Wagoner TYPE OF REVIEW: Side Yard Setback Variance PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, P. I. E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: August 27, 2021 MEETING DATE: September 8, 2021 Summary The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the south side yard setback from the required 7ft. to 3.5 ft., a variance of 3.5 ft., for a lean-to cover to provide shelter for vehicles. The south side of the structure will remain open to the elements. Staff is in support of this request. Background The applicant is requesting a side yard variance:  Side Yard – 7 ft. to 3.5 ft. Setback Required Applicant Proposed Front Yard N/A N/A Interior Side Yard 7 ft 3.5 ft Rear Yard N/A N/A Other Structures N/A N/A The applicant wishes to construct a new 38 ft. by 16 ft. lean-to cover on the south side of the applicant’s house to provide shelter for vehicles. The south side will remain open and not be enclosed. A portion of the east side will have a wall with storage and will be able to block snow from blowing inside the shelter during the winter. The applicant’s house is 18 ft. 3 in. from the property line. If a structure was built to the setback of 7 ft, it would be too narrow for any type of wider vehicle. There have been 6 side yard variance requests since 2017. The requests vary from a reduction of 5 ft. to all the way to the property line. 3 ft. from the property line is a common request 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 is a typical lot for the block and is a standard shape and size. 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 on the adjacent properties. 3.5 ft. allows separation between the proposed structure and the property line. The adjacent house is 12 ft. from the property line. c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner. Staff Analysis: This is a self-imposed hardship. The property is big enough for a detached structure in the rear yard, however the applicant wants to be cost effective with utilizing the existing house and driveway. 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 setback does not oppose the general spirit and intent of the zoning regulations. Options  Approve the variance request as presented  Approve the variance request with conditions  Do not approve the variance request Recommended Action Motion to approve a variance reducing the side yard setback for the primary structure from 7 ft. to 3.5 ft. as submitted. Supporting Documentation Images/Maps/Photos Variance application Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner  Page 3 Structure Location  14 ft 9 in house to post 18 ft 3 in house to property line  08-2021 07-26-2021 Same Same July 26, 2021 50.00 Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant wider Published on the City of Hays Web Page – August 12, 2021, to August 20, 2021 BEFORE THE HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS THE CITY OF HAYS, KANSAS NOTICE TO: Dwight and Michelle Wagoner The Hays Board of Zoning Appeals The City of Hays, Kansas, and all other persons concerned, You are hereby notified that pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 12-759 through K.S.A. 12- 760 et seq. as amended, and Ordinance 3919 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Hays, and Resolution 2007-8 of the Board of County Commissioners of Ellis County, Kansas, that a hearing will be had before said Board upon the appeal filed by Dwight and Michelle Wagoner. The subject of the hearing shall be a request by Dwight and Michelle Wagoner for a three and one-half foot (3 ½’) variance to reduce the south side yard building setback from the required seven feet (7’) to three and one-half foot (3 ½’) on the property at Lot 11, Block 2, East borough Addition generally known as 2918 Barclay Dr. You are hereby notified that a hearing will be had upon said appeal on the 8th day of September 2021 at 8:15 a.m., in the City Commission Chambers of City Hall at 1507 Main, in the City of Hays, Kansas, at which time said appeal will be determined. Lou Caplan, Chairperson Hays Area Board of Zoning Appeals THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Sign Variance Application #09-21 ADDRESS: 109 W. 7th OWNER: Wes Rathbun TYPE OF REVIEW: Variance for Wall Sign PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, P. I. E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: August 27, 2021 MEETING DATE: September 8, 2021 Summary An application for a variance has been submitted for the property at 109 W. 7th St. The variance as submitted is to increase the allowed area of painted wall signage from 32 sq. ft. to 75 sq. ft., an increase of 43 sq. ft. 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 inside the C-3 Zoning District. Based on the facts in this memo, staff recommends approving the request as submitted. Background The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the maximum sign area from 32 sq. ft. to 75 sq. ft. for a painted wall sign. Table 7.2.201B shows the regulation for permanent wall signs within a C-3 District. This regulation allows an unlimited number of signs with an aggregate total of up to 32 sq. ft. One of the proposed signs will be included as part of a mural on the south side of the building. 109 W. 7th is a large building and has a large area with multiple walls that could be used for signage. Original use was a grocery store before being split into 2 spaces for a restaurant and bar. Table 7.2.201B Wall Sign Allowed Number Allowed No minimum; Subject to maximum sign area Maximum Sign Area Aggregate (total) sign area of 32 sf. 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 1953 and is not listed within the Chestnut Street Historic District. This building does not follow the same character of the Main Street buildings, and the property and building are larger than a typical Main Street building. The building’s original use was a grocery store. b. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners. Staff Analysis: This request will have very 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.  Page 2  Staff Analysis: If granted as proposed, this variance would not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety, or general welfare. e. The granting of the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the regulations. Staff Analysis: Granting the variance request will not oppose 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. Furthermore, a proposed UDC regulation change will soon be going forward for consideration to remove restrictions entirely for painted wall signs. Recommended Action None at this time – Public Hearing for consideration of approval will occur on October 13, 2021. Supporting Documentation  Variance application  Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner  Images/Maps/Photos  Page 3 109 W. 7th Located in South Hays 109 W 7th Property  South Wall Looking North East toward the entrance Image of signage on south wall West Wall looking at the entrance  09-2021 08-10-2021 Rathbun Enterprises LLC Same Address to increase the amount of aggregate wall signage from 32 sq. ft. maximum up to 75 sq. ft. for 3 different painted on signs on the west and south walls of the building an increase of 43 sq. ft. Parcel is 111 W 7th C-3 Central Business District Rathbun Enterprises LLC 08-10-2021 $50.00 Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  City of Hays Planning Inspection Enforcement Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Setback Variance Application #10-21 ADDRESS: 302 E. 24th OWNER: Tom & Christine Wasinger TYPE OF REVIEW: Variance PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, P. I. E. Superintendent DATE PREPARED: August 27, 2021 MEETING DATE: September 8, 2021 Summary The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the west side yard setback of a residential property from 7 ft. to 0 ft., a variance of 7 ft. The purpose of the variance is for approval for a lean-to structure that that is already constructed onto the residence at 302 E. 24th. No permit was obtained prior to the lean-to roof structure being built. Staff is not in favor of this request based on the 0 ft. setback of the structure. Background  The applicant is requesting a variance on 1 side: o West Street Side – 7’ to 0’ Setback Required Applicant Proposed Front Yard N/A N/A Side Yard 7’ 0’ Rear Yard N/A N/A Other Structures N/A N/A  Applicant was apparently not aware of permitting requirements therefore the structure was built without a permit. The applicant is requesting a variance, hoping to keep the structure.  The structure is open to the west with supporting columns placed on the property line.   The application referred to medical conditions that limit the applicant’s mobility. This lean-to allows for the applicant to only go a short distance, and also protects the vehicle from ice and snow. Standards of Evaluation: (Per State Statute 12-759 and City Ordinance 3919)  The BZA has the authority to grant a variance if a literal enforcement of the provisions of the adopted regulations, will, in an individual case, result in unnecessary hardship, provided: o The spirit of the regulations shall be observed o Public safety and welfare secured o Substantial justice shall be done  The applicant must show that the property was acquired in good faith and that the variance is needed due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances of the property such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot.  Before granting a variance on the basis of unusual difficulty or unreasonable hardship, there must be finding by the Board that all of the following conditions exist: a. Uniqueness of the property not ordinarily found in the same zone or district and not created by willful action of the owner Staff Analysis: This is a 50 ft x 125 ft. lot that is common in this neighborhood. The only uniqueness is that the house does not have an attached garage and due to the house location on the lot, an attached garage would not fit beside the house. 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 some limited effect on the adjacent property as the structure would be located at the property line. c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner Staff Analysis: This is a self-imposed hardship. No permit was obtained prior to construction and staff would have been able to give guidance on the location of the structure had a permit been inquired about prior to construction. d. The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety, or general welfare  Page 2  Staff Analysis: If granted as proposed, this variance would adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety, or general welfare. Historically, structures have not been allowed to be placed on the property line. 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 Side yard setback does oppose the general spirit and intent of the zoning regulations. Allowing structures on the property line increases the risk of fires spreading to neighboring properties and goes against separation of structures from the property line. Recommended Action None at this time – Public Hearing for consideration of approval will occur on October 13, 2021. Supporting Documentation  Variance application  Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner  Images/Maps/Photos  Page 3  Central Hays 27th St 22nd Vine Property Location Structure Location  10-2021 08-25-2021 Owner August 25, 2021 Linda K Bixenman, Administrative Assistant