Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-18 Board of Zoning Adjustment Minutes MINUTES REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI Monday, August 18, 2008 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 6:00 p.m. Answering roll call were Fred Buckley, Gale Perkins, Jerry Hackenberg and Dean Lefstad. Members absent: Marvin Pool and Jeff Warren. Also present: Jackie Carlson from Shafer Kline and Warren Inc. and Sarah Wagner Administrative Clerk. Approval of Minutes from Dean Lefstad moved to approve the Minutes from June 30, 2008. June 30, 2008 Fred Buckley seconded and the motion passed. Variance Grant to allow Gale Perkins opened the public hearing at 6:01 p.m. addition accessory structure and to exceed the Jackie Carlson with Shafer, Kline and Warren gave a staff report. She total accessory structure explained that the property is a legal non-conforming situation as there square footage.- 4813 are currently 2 accessory structures on the property that total 2,164 Northwood Road square feet. The Unified Development Ordinance allows a maximum of 2 detached accessory buildings per residential lot provided the total combined size for the buildings does not exceed 900 square feet. The applicant is requesting to add a third accessory structure to be used as a recording studio totaling approximately 2,420 square feet. If the structure were built, the total square feet of accessory structures will equal nearly 4,600. In order for the applicant to apply for a construction permit a variance needs to be granted to allow a third accessory structure and allow the total square footage of all accessory structures to exceed 900 square feet. 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 has no evidence that the application meets these criteria as there are no topographic restraints, odd lot shape, or other conditions that would make this a unique and peculiar situation. 2. The strict application of the subject provisions will constitute unnecessary hardship to the applicant. Staff has no evidence that denying the variance will cause an unnecessary hardship. The property is a single-family residence and will continue to operate as such even if the variance is not granted. 1 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 by the granting of the variance because the principal use of the property (single-family residence) will remain the same. 4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, moral or general welfare of the community. No, granting the variance will not adversely affect the 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. Granting the variance is opposed to the general spirit and intent of the accessory structure regulations. The purpose of the accessory structure regulations is to ensure that the principal structure, and thus, the principal use, remain the dominate features of the site and are not overpowered by accessory structures/activities. The proposed accessory structure will greatly increase the square footage of accessory structures on the lot, causing the principal structure (house) to look secondary. Carlson explained that the request does not meets the 5 conditions for approval of a variance; therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance to allow an additional accessory structure exceeding the total number of accessory structures allowed on one property, and to allow the total combined square footage of all accessory structures to exceed the 900 square feet allowed by City Ordinance. Fred Buckley asked how old the codes was that only allows 900 square feet of accessory structure and why the City adopted it. Carlson explained that the UDO was adopted in December of 2006, but this rule was in place before the UDO was adopted. The 900 square feet of accessory structures was determined based on the average lot size in Riverside being 10,000 square feet and taking into consideration the amount of lot to be covered, open space and size of houses. Fred Buckley asked how this code applies to large properties. Carlson replied that there are only a few large properties in Riverside. This is not a typical situation. Dean Lefstad asked if the property owner could expand on one of the other structures. Carlson replied that he could not expand the already existing non- conformity. Dean Lefstad asked if the property owner could add on to the main structure. 2 Carlson replied that he could do that. Grant Schainost addressed the Board. He explained that the recording studio that he currently has all of his equipment at is shutting down. He is now proposing that he will tear down the existing shed on his property and will construct the new building in place of it so he would still only have two accessory structures, but needs a variance to allow more than 900 square feet of accessory structure space. Gale Perkins asked if he would still be running the recording studio. Schainost replied that the space constructed would just be for the storage of equipment. Fred Buckley asked how big the existing shed was and what the proposed size of the recording studio would be. Schainost replied that the shed is 25x60 or 1,500 square feet and the proposed recording studio would be 50x80 or 4,000 square feet. Gale Perkins asked what the square footage of the main residence was. Schainost replied that the main residence was 2,100 square feet. Wayne Snyder of 4909 Merrimac addressed the Board. He explained that he shares the back property line with the applicant’s property. He said that he is supportive of granting the variance. The recording studio would be consistent with the appearance of the neighborhood and won’t hurt the property values. Teresa Hain of 4900 Hillside addressed the Board. She explained that she feels that larger lots and properties need more flexibility with accessory structures because they don’t fit the standard house or lot size. Dean Lefstad commented that making regulations more proportional is a concern with residents who have larger lots. Gale Perkins closed the Public Hearing at 6:58 pm. Fred Buckley moved to approve the variance to allow the total accessory structure to exceed 900 square feet at 4813 Northwood Road. Dean Lefstad seconded. Those in favor were: Dean Lefstad, Jerry Hackenberg, and Fred Buckley Those opposed: Gale Perkins The motion failed. An affirmative vote of four members of the Board of Zoning Adjustment is required to approve any request, application or variance. Gale Perkins explained her no vote. She said that the variance request 3 does not meet the criteria listed in the UDO. By granting the variance the home would become a secondary structure to the large recording studio. Jerry Hackenberg asked if the applicant could do a lot split. Carlson replied that a lot split require a house on each lots as the primary structure. Carlson said that she would work with the Planning and Zoning Commission to balance regulations for larger lots. Adjournment Jerry Hackenberg made a motion to adjourn Dean Lefstad seconded and the meeting was adjourned. _____________________________________ Sarah Wagner, Administrative Clerk 4