Board of Zoning Appeals

HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AGENDA CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1507 MAIN, HAYS, KS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2022 8:15 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN. 2. CONSENT AGENDA. A. Minutes of the regular meeting of December 8, 2021. Action: Consider approving the minutes of the December 8, 2021, regular meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. A. Public Hearing for Nex-Tech Wireless for a special use/exception to allow a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF) located in a C-2 Commercial General District at 1803 General Custer Road, Hays, KS. Action: Consider approving the special use/exception to allow a Wireless Telecommunication Facility at 1803 General Custer Road. B. Public Hearing for Nex-Tech Wireless to increase the height of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) from the allowable 65 feet to 120 feet at the property of 1803 General Custer Road, Hays, KS. Action: Consider approving an increase in height of a wireless telecommunications facility (WTF) from the allowable 65 feet to 120 feet at the property of 1803 General Custer Road, Hays, KS. 4. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. A. Request for a Public Hearing by Justin MacDonald for a variance to allow a six foot fence in the front yard within the NC.2 (Neighborhood Conservation District) on the property at lots 1-2, Block A, Tallgrass Addition, generally known as 1303 Tallgrass Drive, Hays, KS. B. Request for a Public Hearing for an 11-foot variance to reduce the platted front yard building setback from the required 25 feet to 14 feet to construct a detached garage at Lot 2, Block 7, Northridge 3rd Addition, generally known as 3000 Northridge Court. 5. OFF-AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS: A. None 6. ADJOURNMENT: Any person with a disability and needing special accommodations to attend this meeting should contact the Planning & Development office (785-628-7310) 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.  DRAFT HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMISSION CHAMBERS IN CITY HALL DECEMBER 8, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Hays Area Board of Zoning Appeals met for the regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 8, 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, Rich Sieker, Russell Koenigsman & Brian Garrett. Absent: Jerry Sonntag City Staff in attendance: Jesse Rohr, Director of Public Works, Curtis Deines, Superintendent of Planning, Inspection, and Enforcement, Collin Bielser, Assistant City Manager 2. CONSENT AGENDA: A. MINUTES: Rich Sieker moved; Russell Koenigsman seconded the motion to approve the minutes as submitted from the November 10, 2021, meeting. Vote: AYES: Lou Caplan, Rich Sieker, Russell Koenigsman & Brian Garrett. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. Public Hearing for Trenton Hansen for an 11-foot variance request to reduce the platted north side yard building set back from the required 25 feet to 14 feet to construct a detached garage at 2721 Walnut Street. Curtis Deines provided a PowerPoint presentation of the applicant’s request for a 11-foot variance to reduce the north street side yard building platted setback of a residential property from the required 25 feet to 14 feet to construct a detached garage at 2721 Walnut Street, Hays, Kansas. He presented the plat that was approved in 1964 that reflects the front yard building setback to be 35 feet along Walnut Street and the street side yard building setback of 25 feet along 29th Street. The current regulations allow a 14- foot streetside setback. Today’s regulations would not support a more restrictive setback on the plat. He showed two visuals of the property to point out the setback. He explained the five statutory requirements that are to be satisfied for approval and how they are associated with this property. History: In 2016 a variance was granted for a detached garage in the area to reduce the street side yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet. 1  He provided the recommended action. Motion: Brian Garrett moved, Rich Sieker seconded the motion to approve the variance to reduce the north side yard (along 29th Street) building setback of a residential property from 25 ft. to 14 ft., a variance of 11 ft. at 2721 Walnut, to construct a detached garage based on that it satisfies the five statutory requirements. Vote: AYES: Lou Caplan, Rich Sieker, Russell Koenigsman & Brian Garrett. Curtis Deines explained to the applicant to meet up on the preparation of the building permit application. 4. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. Request for a Public Hearing by Nex-Tech Wireless for a special use/exception to allow a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF) to be located in a C-2 Commercial General District at 1803 General Custer Road. Curtis Deines provided a PowerPoint presentation of the applicant’s request for a special use permit to allow a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF), or cell tower, to be located in a C-2 zoned district at 1803 General Custer Road. He provided a zoning map to show the location of it. The purpose of the tower is for Nex-Tech Wireless to expand their service to 5G and plan for the future. He provided a picture of an existing cell tower to the west that would be an example of what the proposed wireless tower would look like. Lou Caplan asked the height of that tower. Curtis Deines answered that it was 120 feet. He explained the Unified Development Code requirements for the special use associated with the list below:  Setbacks  Collapse Points  Opaque 6 foot fence enclosing base and facilities  Vehicle Access  New towers require FAA approval in proximity to the airport  Regulations by the FCC to be followed He stated that the board shall give consideration to the comprehensive zoning plan, the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the community and included the main factors and listed those that most apply were in bold print. 2 There will be a public hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals on January 12, 2022. Lou Caplan asked if Nex-Tech Wireless owned that building next to the proposed tower. Curtis Deines and the representative from Nex-Tech Wireless, Creighton Remus, answered that it was Richard and Tawnita Augustine. It is a gymnastics building. Nex-Tech is leasing the area. Rich Sieker asked for clarification if they rent to other companies too. Mr. Remus answered that other telecommunication companies may rent the tower too. Curtis Deines pointed out the area on the map for the proposed tower. Russell Koenigsman asked if there was no concern that the proposed tower would be in the parking lot and if there were any safety issues. Curtis Deines stated that the location was adjusted closer to the building so it would not impact as much of the parking lot losing; they would lose two parking stalls. It will be protected by a fence. If they feel they need extra protection, they can put up bollards. Mr. Remus answered that many times they do put up bollards. Brian Garrett asked what the collapse point is on the tower. Mr. Remus answered that if the tower would collapse it would collapse at 65 feet. Curtis Deines added that if the tower would fall, it would not fall on any adjacent properties other than the risk the building owner is taking with the building next to the proposed tower. That would depend on which direction it would fall. B. Request for a Public Hearing by Nex-Tech Wireless for a variance in height from the allowed 65 feet to 120 feet, a variance of 55 feet for a Wireless Communication Telecommunication Facility at 1803 General Custer Road, Hays, KS. Curtis Deines stated that if the special use permit is approved, the applicant has requested a variance in height from the allowed 65 feet to 120 feet for a wireless communication tower. He provided a PowerPoint presentation of the applicant’s request. He pointed out that there are more than 10 other telecommunication towers within the City Limits of Hays and extraterritorial jurisdiction. All of those towers that are installed are at or above 120 feet in height. He explained the five statutory requirements that are to be satisfied for approval and how they are associated with this property. History: In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s is when the last cell towers were installed in city limits. Ten or more have been installed and are 120 foot or taller. There will be a public hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals on January 12, 2022. He explained there would be one presentation for the special use and height variance with two separate motions. 3 Lou Caplan stated that he was on the board the last time they approved one of these towers. He pointed out what was brought up by the audience as the collapse of the tower and how often it happens to be prepared to answer those questions. 5. OFF AGENDA ITEMS/COMMUNICATIONS: A. Update of Members of the Board. Jesse Rohr informed the board that Jerry Sonntag originally represented the extraterritorial jurisdiction on the board. Since he has relocated into town, he cannot technically, serve on the board anymore to represent the extraterritorial jurisdiction. Today is his last meeting. This will be a vacancy on this board. If anyone knows of someone that would like to be considered for the vacancy that lives in the extraterritorial jurisdiction, to please let city staff know. ADJOURNMENT Lou Caplan adjourned the meeting at 8:33 a.m. Submitted by Linda K. Bixenman, Administrative Assistant 4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  City of Hays Planning & Development Division Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Special Use Permit Application #12-21 ADDRESS: 1803 General Custer OWNER: Richard & Tawnita Augustine Nex-Tech Wireless TYPE OF REVIEW: Special Use Permit for Wireless Telecommunications Facility (Cellular Tower) PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, Planning & Development Superintendent DATE PREPARED: December 29, 2021 AGENDA DATE: January 12, 2022 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF), or cell tower, to be located in a C-2 zoned district at 1803 General Custer Rd. Staff feels that the request is reasonable and will not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding properties as long as all applicable regulations are followed. BACKGROUND Nex-Tech Wireless has submitted an application for a special use request to construct a 120 ft. tall cell tower at 1803 General Custer Rd. The purpose of the tower is for Nex-Tech Wireless to expand their service to 5G and plan for the future. The following are the requirements for freestanding non-stealth cell towers within a C-2 District in accordance with the Unified Development Code (UDC): 1. Tower Setbacks: a. A distance equal to 110 percent of the height of the tower; or b. For towers with performed collapse points, 110 percent of the height of the tallest section. 2. Wireless telecommunication accessory structure setbacks shall be minimum 15 ft. from the property line. 3. Design:  a. An opaque fence not less than six feet in height and not more than 10 ft in height which encloses the base of all wireless telecommunications towers and related facilities. b. Wireless Telecommunication Facility maximum heights: i. C-2: 20 ft. above the maximum building height permitted in zoning district. (C-2 max building height is 45 ft.) 4. Other: a. New towers that exceed the maximum height of the zoning district, require notification to and approval from the FAA due to proximity of the Hays Regional Airport. b. All applicable rule and regulations required by the FCC must be followed. The applicant has provided all the documents and details to meet the requirements from the list above. 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 (particularly the bolded 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.  Page 2  STAFF ANALYSIS After considering all factors and evaluating the surrounding area, staff feels that the request is reasonable and will not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding properties. The applicant has met the compatibility standards for the special use request as required by the Unified Development Code. Options • Approve special use request • Approve special use with conditions • Do not approve the special use request RECOMMENDED ACTION Motion to approve a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF), or cell tower, to be located in a C-2 zoned district at 1803 General Custer Rd. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Maps of Area Special Use Permit Application Statement of Justification from Owner  Page 3 Red box indicates a 25 ft. x 25ft. leased area. The actual fenced in area will be less. Estimated to be 10 ft. x 10 ft area at this time. 1803 General Custer Zoning  12-2021 11-22-2021 / Nex-Tech Wireless 2.2.311 (4) a 120Wireless ft tall Wireless Telecommunication Telecommunication Tower Facility (WTF) C-2 1803 General Custer Rd 1 --- Brackney Addition Creighton Remus Richard Augustine November 22 2021 50.00 Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant  Published on the City of Hays Web Page - December 14, 2021 to December 27, 2021 BEFORE THE HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS THE CITY OF HAYS, KANSAS NOTICE TO: Nex-Tech Wireless and Richard and Tawnita Augustine The Hays Area 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 4004 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Hays, and Resolution 2021-20 of the Board of County Commissioners of Ellis County, Kansas, that a hearing will be had before said Board upon the appeal filed by Nex-Tech Wireless and Richard and Tawnita Augustine. The subject of the public hearing shall be a request by Nex-Tech Wireless and Richard and Tawnita Augustine for a special use/exception to allow a wireless telecommunication facility (WTF), (cellular telecommunications tower), to be located in a C-2 Commercial General Zoning District at Lot 1, Brackney Addition, generally known as 1803 General Custer Road, Hays, KS. and A request by Nex-Tech Wireless and Richard and Tawnita Augustine to increase the height of a wireless telecommunications tower (WTF) (cellular telecommunications tower) from the allowable 65 feet to 120 feet at the property of Lot 1, Brackney Addition, generally known as 1803 General Custer Road, Hays, KS. You are hereby notified that a hearing will be had upon said appeal on the 12th day of January 2022 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 & Development Division Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Height Variance Application #13-21 ADDRESS: 1803 General Custer Rd OWNER: Richard & Tawnita Augustine & Nex-Tech Wireless TYPE OF REVIEW: Height Variance – Cellular Tower PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, Planning & Development Superintendent DATE PREPARED: December 29, 2021 MEETING DATE: January 12, 2022 Summary The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the height of a cellular telecommunications tower from the allowable 65 ft. to 120 ft. at the property located at 1803 General Custer Rd. Staff recommends approving the variance request based on the fall zone criteria supplied by the applicant and the height of tower required for adequate signal strength. Background The applicant is requesting a height variance for a wireless telecommunication tower: • Maximum building height in C-2 Zoning District for a cellular tower is 65 ft. • There are more than 10 other telecommunications towers within the city limits of Hays or in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. All of the towers that are installed are at or above 120 ft. in height. 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 smaller than the average commercial lot for this area. Previous regulation did not limit height of cell towers and why there were no previous requests for a variance in height. This height restriction does not allow the full effectiveness of signal output. No other similar towers in Hays are known to be less than 120 ft. in height. 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 rights of adjacent properties. There is another tower approximately 750 ft. from this location with no known concerns of adjacent property owners. c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner. Staff Analysis: Tower height in Western Kansas is important to the effectiveness of the signal output of the telecommunications tower. Limiting the height may require more towers to be erected rather than taller and fewer towers. The regulation for building height should not dictate the height of telecommunication towers. This particular regulation is currently under review for change and may not require a height variance in the future. 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. 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 increased tower height does not oppose the general spirit and intent of the zoning regulations.  Page 2  Options • Approve variance request • Approve variance with conditions • Disapprove variance as submitted Recommended Action Motion to approve the variance to increase the height of a cellular telecommunications tower from the allowable 65 ft. to 120 ft. at the property located at 1803 General Custer Rd. Supporting Documentation Images/Maps/Photos Variance application Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner  Page 3 Red box indicates a 25 ft. x 25ft. leased area. The actual fenced in area will be less. Estimated to be 10 ft. x 10 ft area at this time. 1803 General Custer Zoning  13-2021 11-23-2021 -------- Lot 1, Brackney Addition C-2 Creighton Remus Richard L Augustine November 23, 2021 50.00 Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  City of Hays Planning & Development Division Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Setback Variance Application 01-22 ADDRESS: 1303 Tallgrass OWNER: Justin McDonald TYPE OF REVIEW: Fence Height Variance PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, Planning & Development Superintendent DATE PREPARED: January 4, 2022 AGENDA DATE: January 12, 2022 Summary The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the fence height from 42 inches up to 72 inches (6 ft.) in the front setback of the property located at 1303 Tallgrass Dr. Recently, the owner hired a contractor to build a new fence in the same location as the previous fence, which was 42 inches in height or less. The applicant requests to have a 6 ft. fence in this location. Staff is not in favor of this request as it goes against the intent of the UDC regulation for fence height in the front setback. Background The applicant owns 2 parcels at 1303 Tallgrass Drive. Previous owners purchased the 1301 Tallgrass parcel and built a fence in the front setback at 42 inches in height. The residence was built in 2008. Recently, the owner hired a contractor to build a new fence in the same location as the previous fence. The applicant now desires to have a 6 ft. fence in this location. Current regulation allows a maximum 42-inch-tall fence in residential districts within the front setback. The new property owner is replacing the fence and would like it to be 6 ft. tall. The owner has the option of building a 6 ft. fence at the front setback of the house keeping it in line with 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 property has no unique characteristics. It is 2 lots combined together. On the back side of the fence (west) the lot does slope to have the affect of a 6. Ft. fence on the interior of the yard. b. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners. Staff Analysis: The proposed request may adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners by obstructing views not normally obstructed for fences complying with regulation. 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 owner can have a 6 ft. fence, but it would have to move back approximately 10 ft. d. The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, propriety, or general welfare. Staff Analysis: It is unlikely that if granted as proposed, this variance would adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. e. The granting of the variance desired will be oppose to the general spirit and intent of the regulations.  Page 2  Staff Analysis: The granting of the variance for the proposed 6 ft. fence would oppose the general spirit and intent of the regulations. The regulation was changed to not allow 6 ft. fences at the front setback line. The intent of the regulation is to be consistent with fences not being 6 ft. tall in front of the front setback line or at the front property line. Just because the property owner has an extra lot doesn’t mean they have justification for a taller fence closer to the street. Recommended Action None at this time – Public Hearing for consideration of approval will occur on February 9, 2022. Supporting Documentation Images/Maps/Photos Variance application Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner  Page 3 1303 1301 View with previous fence Current View Natural drop off on west side of fence  01-2022 12-21-2022 Same Same N/A N/A Owner Justin MacDonald December 21, 2021 50.00 Linda Bixenman, Administrative Assistant THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  City of Hays Planning & Development Division Board of Zoning Appeals Action Report AGENDA ITEM: Side Yard Variance Application #02-22 ADDRESS: 3000 Northridge Court OWNER: Scott Hess TYPE OF REVIEW: Street Side Yard Setback Variance PRESENTED BY: Curtis W. Deines, Planning & Development Superintendent DATE PREPARED: January 3, 2022 MEETING DATE: January 12, 2022 Summary The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the north side yard building setback of a residential property from the required 25 ft. to 14 ft., a variance of 11 ft., to construct a detached garage. Although current regulation allows a minimum 14 ft. setback, the current plat for the property requires the side yard building setback to be 25 ft. from the side property line. Staff is in support of this request since the proposed setback will still be within the UDC regulations. Background The applicant is requesting a street side yard variance:  Street Side Yard – 25 ft. to 14 ft. Setback Required Setback Application by Plat Required by NC. Proposed 2 District Front Yard 25 ft 25 ft N/A Side Yard (North) 25 ft 14 ft 14 ft Rear Yard N/A N/A N/A Other Structures N/A N/A N/A  The applicant wishes to construct a new detached garage in the rear yard of the property within the NC.2 Residential Zoning District to provide shelter for vehicles.   The applicant plans to have the doors facing south so it is easier to have access and the ease of backing trailers into the garage. 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 compared to other lots in the area. The lot is a typical lot for the block and is a standard shape and size. The zoning district of NC.2 allows a setback of 14 ft. for the Street Side. In this case the plat is more restrictive requiring a 25 ft. setback, which makes the variance request unique. 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. The 11-foot variance will not affect adjacent properties as the location of the reduced setback is adjacent to Northridge Dr. c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner. Staff Analysis: The plat is more restrictive than the zoning district setbacks. This reduces the amount of buildable area on the lot. The plat was approved in 1960 and we would not recommend the plat to be more restrictive than our regulations if platted today. The City’s intent is to allow more flexibility for structures to be built on private property. Without replatting, a variance is the only relief of the more restrictive regulation.  Page 2  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. 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. Current UDC regulation would allow a 14 ft. set back from the street side. Recommended Action None at this time – Public Hearing for consideration of approval will occur on February 9, 2022. Supporting Documentation Images/Maps/Photos Variance application Variance justification and site drawing(s) from owner  Page 3 North Central Hays 3000 Northridge Ct Proposed Garage 14 ft  Property Line 5’ sidewalk Proposed 14’ Setback 5 ft 02-2022 12-29-2021 12/20/21 Scott Hess Statement of Justification A. Uniqueness: The situation at hand is unique due to the fact that Northridge Drive runs at an angle. This results in the current 25 ft setback to extend further into my backyard. The current regulation for the district is now only 14 ft. Building the garage 15 ft off my property line will let me build in line with the house not only making it more aesthetic but also leaving some leftover backyard space. B. Adjacent Property: The granting of the permit for the variance will not adversely affect the rights of the adjacent property owners or residents. The garage will still be far enough from the street that it will not affect anyone. C. Hardship: Without shifting the garage closer to the street, the driveway and building will take up most if not all of the backyard and resulting in additional concrete cost for the driveway. If I turned the garage so it would face the alley, it would be impossible to back a boat or trailer into it. D. Public Interest: The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. E. 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 Zoning Regulations. The plat layouts in the 60s and 70s required larger setbacks. Today's regulations allow building closer to the property line. The garage will still be built with plenty of clearance on all sides. Placing the garage where I am planning it, will still allow for the intended setbacks.