The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-04-08 BZA PacketCITY OF � RIVERSIDE MISSOURI Upstream from ordinary. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING RIVERSIDE CITY HALL 2950 NW VIVION ROAD RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI 64150 AGENDA APRIL 8, 2021 5:30 p.m. 1. CaII to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes of April 22, 2020 4 Request for a variance from the minimum lot width requirement at 5009 NW Strathbury 5. Adjourn Sarah Wagner, City Plann Posted 04.05.21 at 10:30 a.m. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI Wednesday, April 22, 2020 5:30 p.m. The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Riverside, Missouri, met in regular session on Wednesday, April 22, 2020 via Zoom meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. Answering roll call were Lowell Hickman, Chris Craig, Rick Euwer, Dave Thatcher and John Heryear. Members absent: Lowell Hickman. Also present: Greg Rothers, Richard & Sandy Wilsbacher, Austin & Kelsey Hague, Sarah Wagner, Community Development City Planner and Rhonda Smith, Administrative Clerk. Request for a variance from side and front setbacks at 3705 NW 50`h Street The public hearing was opened at 5:30 p.m. Sarah Wagner, City Planner, gave a staff report. She explained that the applicant, Greg Rothers, is requesting a variance for construction of a 2,050 square foot single family home to save a large tree on the property. The proposed house would extend 2.5 feet into the setback to the north. The property to the north is undeveloped at this time Per Section 400.290 of the UDO a variance should meet 5 conditions for approval. 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. The applicant is making the request to shift the house 2.4 feet to the east reducing the required 10 -foot side setback and five feet to the north reducing the 30 -foot front setback in order to avoid cutting down a large tree on the west side of the property. This lot is located in an establish neighborhood that has other large established trees. Keeping this tree would not only help the environment and sustainability efforts, but it would also stay within the characteristics of the neighborhood. 2. The strict application of the subject provisions will constitute unnecessary hardship to the applicant. The applicant desires to construct a new single family home that meets all of the code requirements with the exception of the 10 ft. side setback to the east and the 30 -foot front setback to the north. If it wasn't for the applicant's desire to keep a large established tree he would be able to meet the requires setbacks. 3. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. 1 The surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected because the principal use of the property will remain the same. The property to the east does have an existing home on it. However, there are other houses in the general area that do not meet all of the setback requirements. In 2015 the BZA approved a similar variance at 4807 NW Hillside to allow a side setback of 7.5 feet. In addition, many of the new developments in Riverside have 25 -foot front setbacks. 4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, moral or general welfare of the community. Granting the variance will not adversely affect the welfare of the community Although granting the variance will place the house closer to adjoining properties it will not extend over any property lines and there will be adequate room to access all sides of the house while remaining on the principal property. Additionally, the property will be used as it was intended in a residential area, granting the variance will not have an impact on the community If anything, granting the variance to allow the applicant to keep the tree will increase the general health, moral and welfare of 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. The granting of this variance will not conflict with or be opposed to the general spirit of the setback ordinance. There are several residential developments in the city that are zone PD -Planned Development that allow for deviations from the established code. Applicant Greg Rothers noted that the tree on the property was a 48 - inch very mature tree and the variance could possibly disturb the root system but not as much backfill would be required. Rick Euwer noted that he had tried to save a tree when building a home and the tree became overstressed and died anyway. Sandy Wilsbacher questioned why there were five building lots instead of four. Wagner noted that the five lots were always proposed for the property and that this meeting was only about the proposed variance. Sandy Wilsbacher noted she was not in favor of the variance because there were already too many houses planned in such a small area and the surrounding neighbors prefer houses on larger lots. John Heryer noted that the neighbor's opinions were important. Greg Rothers noted that the house would be built regardless if the variance was granted. The tree would just be destroyed. The public hearing was closed at 5:48 pm. Chris Craig made a motion to deny the proposed variance; seconded by John Heryer. Motion approved 4-0. 2 Adjournment Rick Euwer made a motion to adjourn, seconded by John Heryer. The meeting was adjourned 4 -0. Rhonda Smith, Administrative Clerk 3 CITY OF RIVERSIDE, Upstream from ordinary. City of Riverside Staff Analysis Report Case Number BZA20-01 Variance 5009 NW Strathbury Ave. Parcel # 19-9.0-32-400-004-034.000 General Information Appellant: Greg Rothers- Rothers Design/Build Location: 5009 NW Strathbury Ave. Application: Variance from the 80 -foot minimum lot width requirement Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential Existing Land Use: Undeveloped proposed single family homes Analysis The applicant is requesting a variance from the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 400.320 regulating the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District to vary from the required 80 foot minimum lot width. The applicant would like to purchase the above referenced property and split the parcel into two buildable lots. The current parcel is approximately 150 feet wide. Splitting the lot would make the two lots approximately 75 feet each. The applicant has not formally surveyed the property so staff is requesting that if the variance is granted the applicant would be given leeway to have the variance up to 70 feet. If this request is approved the applicant will still need to go through the platting process with the Planning Commission and Board of Aldermen. Per Section 400.290 of the UDO a variance should meet 5 conditions for approval. 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. The applicant is making the request to split the current parcel into two lots so that two separate homes can be constructed. The economics are not feasible in our current climate to purchase the property and only construct one house. 2. The strict application of the subject provisions will constitute unnecessary hardship to the applicant. Without the granting of this variance it would not be economically feasible for the developer to build and therefor this property would remain vacant. 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. In addition, several properties in the surrounding neighborhood have a lot width less than the required 80 feet. Reducing this requirement for this particular property would not be out of character for the neighborhood. Page 1 of 2 4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, moral or general welfare of the community. Granting the variance will not adversely affect the welfare of the community. The applicant will still have to meet all other setback and code requirements. 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. The granting of this variance will not conflict with or be opposed to the general spirit of the minimum lot width ordinance. There are several residential developments in the city that are zone PD -Planned Development that allow for deviations from the established code. Recommendation Staff supports the applicants request for a variance from the required 80 foot minimum lots width. The City strives to be a pro development community One of the goals of the City's comprehensive plan is to bring new high quality single family homes to the community The applicant has proven his ability to develop infill lots with quality homes. Developed lots tend to be better maintained and are less likely to have code violations and be a maintenance concern for City staff. Attachment Exhibit A: Project Location Map Page 2 of 2