HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-24 Board of Zoning Adjustment Minutes
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI
Monday, April 24, 2017
6:00 p.m.
The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Riverside, Missouri, met in regular session in the Riverside Municipal
Court, 2950 NW Vivion Road, Riverside, Missouri.
The meeting was called to order at 5:58 p.m. Answering roll call were Lowell Hickman, Chris Craig, John Heryer, Rick
Euwer and Dave Thatcher. Members absent: None. Also present: A.J. Shumate, Property Owner; Sarah Wagner, City
Planner; and Rhonda Smith, Administrative Clerk.
Variance for setback for a The public hearing was opened at 6:00 p.m.
detached garage – 5001
NW High Drive Sarah Wagner, City Planner, gave a staff report. She explained that the
property lot is odd-shaped and smaller and the setbacks in the area
where the applicant would like to build the detached garage has utility
lines that limit placement. The applicant is asking for setbacks of 8 feet
and 5 feet instead of the normal 10 feet on each side.
Section 400.290 of the UDO outlines five conditions that should be met
for variance approval. Explained each as follows:
1. The need for a variance arises from a condition which is unique
and peculiar to the property in question and which is not prevalent
in the neighborhood and ordinarily not found in the same zone or
district, and further, is not created by an action or actions of the
property owner or applicant.
Staff agrees that this lot is a unique shape with numerous utility lines
that run through the property that restrict placement of an accessory
structure.
2. The strict application of the subject provisions will constitute
unnecessary hardship to the applicant.
The accessory structure meets all code with the exception of the
setbacks. If it were not for the utility lines and unique shape of the lot
the applicant would be able to place the structure elsewhere.
3. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights
of adjacent property owners or residents.
The surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected because
the principal use of the property will remain the same. The applicant has
provided a signed letter from adjacent property owners in support of this
application.
4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public
health, safety, moral or general welfare of the community.
1
Granting the variance will not adversely affect the welfare of the
community. Although granting the variance will place the accessory
structure closer to adjoining properties it will not extend over any
property lines and there will be adequate room to access all sides of the
structure while remaining on the principal property. Additionally, the
property will continue to operate as it did previously so essentially,
grant the variance will not have an impact on the community.
5. The granting of the variance will not be opposed to the general
spirit and intent of the ordinance from which the variance is sought
and will not be in conflict with any existing laws or ordinances.
Granting the variance will not conflict with or be opposed to the general
spirit of the setback ordinance. There are several residential
development in the city that are zone PD-Planned Development that
allow for deviations from the established code.
Wagner explained that the request does meet the five conditions for
approval of a variance; therefore, staff recommends approval of the
variance to allow the additional accessory structure with the diminished
setbacks.
John Heryer wanted to know if the utility lines were all buried. Shumate
replied that the utility line was a water line and it was buried.
Wagner noted that all applicants within 185 feet of the home have been
notified and the applicant has spoken with neighbors on both sides of
the property.
Lowell Hickman noted that there is ample amount of room to change
the curve of the driveway if needed.
Chris Craig wanted to know if the structure would be permanent.
Shumate noted that it would be a permanent structure and that he had
coordinated with James Fuller, the city building inspector, to make sure
the structure was within code.
The public hearing was closed at 6:05 pm.
John Heryer made a motion to approve the variance with 8 foot and 5
foot setbacks; seconded by Dave Thatcher. Motion approved 5-0.
Adjournment Rick Euwer made a motion to adjourn, seconded by John Heryer.
The meeting was adjourned 5 -0.
_____________________________________
Rhonda Smith, Administrative Clerk
2