HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-12-07 BZA Packet1. Call to Order
2 . Roll Call
CITY OF
G..-RIVE~ID~
MISSOURI
Upstream from ordinary.
BOARD OF ZONING
ADJUSTMENT MEETING
RIVERSIDE CITY HALL
2950 NW VIVION ROAD
RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI 64150
AGENDA
DECEMBER 7, 2021
5:30 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes of April 8, 2021
4. Request for a variance from the minimum parking lot setback at 4304 NW Mattox Rd.
5. Adjourn
ATTEST~~
Posted 12.02.21 at 11 :30 a.m .
1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI
Thursday, April 8, 2021
5:30 p.m.
The Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Riverside, Missouri, met in regular session on Thursday, April 8, 2021
via Zoom meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. Answering roll call were Chris Craig, Rick Euwer and John Heryer.
Members absent: David Thatcher. Also present: Greg Rothers, Sarah Wagner, Community Development City Planner
and Rhonda Smith, Administrative Clerk.
Approval of Minutes of
April 22, 2020.
John Heryer moved to approve the minutes of April 22, 2020, seconded
by Rick Euwer. Motion passed 3-0.
Request for variance from
the minimum lot width
requirement at 5009 NW
Strathbury
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 from the required 80-
foot minimum lot width. The applicant has a 150-foot lot that he would
like to split into two lots approximately 75 feet in width.
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
2
property would not be out of character for the neighborhood.
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.
Chris Craig wanted to know if the property setbacks would remain the
same. Wagner indicated that they would.
The public hearing was closed at 5:40 pm.
John Heryer made a motion to approve the proposed variance; seconded
by Chris Craig. Motion approved 3-0.
Adjournment Rick Euwer made a motion to adjourn, seconded by John Heryer.
The meeting was adjourned 3 -0.
_____________________________________
Rhonda Smith, Administrative Clerk
NW Mattox Rd
NW 41st Stre et
NW Belgium Blvd
NW Horizons Pkwy
.
PC21-10 S UP4304 N W Mattox R d
W
B-
6
7
A
A
SH
TO
2011 (
U
S)
(c) 2021 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
W
B-
6
7
A
A
SH
T
O
2011 (U
S)
(c) 2021 Transoft Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
3' PARKING SETBACK
50'50'100'
50'
3' PARKING SETBACK
BORROW PIT
number:
reference
Sheet
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
D
w
n
b
y
:
C
k
d
b
y
:
S
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
b
y
:
F
i
le
n
a
m
e
:
P
lo
t
d
a
t
e
:
D
a
t
e
:
R
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
:
R
e
v
.
2
15
8
2
7
-
S
T
-
C
P
-
S
U
P
.d
g
n
11/
3
/
2
0
2
1
9
:3
9
:
3
4
A
M
1:
5
0
G:\Shared drives\215827\CADD\215827-ST-CP-SUP.dgn
A
p
p
r
.
M
a
r
k
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
D
a
t
e
P
lo
t
s
c
a
le
:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
R
P
R
P
L
W
S
B
Z
A
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
H
i
5
F
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
,
M
i
s
s
o
u
r
i
4
3
0
4
M
a
t
t
o
x
R
o
a
d
S
IT
E
P
L
A
N
C1
1
1
-
2
-
2
0
2
1
11-
2
0
2
1
RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI
HI5 FURNITURE OUTDOOR STORAGE SPACE
SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND BZA PLAN FOR
A
N
D
B
Z
A
R
E
Q
U
E
S
T
S
P
E
C
IA
L
U
S
E
P
E
R
M
IT
(Moonglow Juniper or similar)
8' Tall Columnar Evergreen
6' High Chain Link Fencing
Area
26,000 sf Outdoor Storage 0
FEETSCALE: 1" =
Trash Enclosure
KANSAS CITY, MO 64151-3980
5775 NW 64TH TER STE 203
4306 MATTOX LLC1
1
RIVERSIDE, MO 64150-0000
75 NW BUSINESS PARK LN
BELGIAN BOTTOMS 3 LLC4
4
RIVERSIDE, MO 64150
4380 BELGIUM ROAD
JJJ ENTERPRISES LLC2
3
GREEN BAY, WI 54304-0000
3250 S RIDGE ROAD
GREEN BAY PACKAGING, INC
2
3
DELRAY BEACH, FL 33446-0000
8458 EAGLEVILLE AVE
RIVERSIDE KC LLC5
5
MILWAUKEE, WI 53201-0591
PO BOX 591
ADIENT US LLC6
6
7
7
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413-0000
2100 SUMMER STREET NE, STE 200
PREMIUM WATERS INC
OWNERS WITHIN 185'EXIST PARKINGREMAIN
EXISTING TREES TO
Page 1 of 2
City of Riverside
Staff Analysis Report
Case Number BZA21-02 Variance
4304 NW Mattox Road
General Information
Appellant: Hi5 Furniture
Location: 4304 NW Mattox Road
Application: Variance from the 15-foot parking lot setback
Zoning: GP-I General Planned Industrial
Existing Land Use: Industrial/Warehouse
Analysis
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section
400.500.G.3 regulating Non- Residential Zoning District to vary from the required 15-foot minimum
setback for parking lots. The applicant has the opportunity to lease a portion of their building to a
national HVAC contractor. With this lease the applicant will need to add additional parking for the
facility. The proposed parking would be on the east side of the building. In order to meet their parking
needs they are requesting that the parking setback on NW Mattox road be reduced from 15 feet to 3 feet.
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 relax the parking lot setback to construct a new parking lot off
NW Mattox Road. In 2012 the city of Riverside purchased 20 feet of right-of way for improvements to
NW Mattox Road from the previous owner.
2. The strict application of the subject provisions will constitute unnecessary hardship to the
applicant.
Without the granting of this variance the applicant has the potential to lose this tenant. In addition, this
property is part of the state TIF in which the City receives a portion of the payroll taxes paid to the state.
Additional employees within the TIF boundary means additional funds to the city.
3. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or
residents.
The surrounding area will not be adversely affects as many of the surrounding properties are zoned PD –
Planned Development and do not have a parking lot set back. Reducing the existing setback to three feet
would be in character with the surrounding properties.
Page 2 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
parking lot setback There are several other 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 15-foot minimum parking lot
setback. The City strives to be a pro-business community. One of the goals of the City’s comprehensive
plan is to bring new businesses to the community.
Attachment
• Exhibit A: Project Location Map
One Vision. One Team. One Call.
November 3, 2021
Board of Zoning Adjustment
City of Riverside, Missouri
Re: BZA Request Letter
Hi5 Furniture – Parking Setback
4304 Maddox Road
The Following requests are made with application with conditions as stated
below, each request we have stated reasons for the request with conditions per the
application instructions including:
1. Condition Unique to the Property – The variance requested arises from such
condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily
found in the same zone or district; and is not created by an
action or actions of the property owner or applicant;
2. No Adverse Effects – The granting of the permit for the variance will not
adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents;
3. Unnecessary Hardship – The strict application of the provisions of the zoning
regulations of which the variance is requested will constitute unnecessary
hardship upon the property owner represented in the application;
4. Public Health, Safety and Welfare – The variance desired will not adversely
affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general
welfare; and
5. Ordinance Intent – The granting of the variance desired will not be opposed to
the general spirit and intent of the zoning regulations.
Request #1 – Parking Lot Setback
Riverside Unified Development Ordinance 400.500.G.3 -
“Non-residential districts. In "C-1" and more intensive districts, no off-street
parking spaces shall be permitted within fifteen (15) feet of public street right-of-
way.”
Variance request: Reduce the requirement to 3’ along Maddox Road ROW.
Reason for request
1. Condition Unique to the Property – The building is already constructed, the
South parking lot is already constructed. The new lot is proposed to match the
setback of the existing parking lot. The City had a 20’ ROW taking in 2012
reducing the area in front of the building and creating the setback on the existing
south parking lot.
Board of Zoning Adjustment
November 3, 2021
2. No Adverse Effects – The proposed parking lot improvements are set back approx 40 from back of
curb on Maddox Road and the new parking will match the existing parking built prior to the 20’ ROW
taking. The improvements will cause no adverse effects to adjacent properties.
3. Unnecessary Hardship – The proposed new tenant who will occupy an unused portion of the existing
building requires the location of the additional parking.
4. Public Health, Safety and Welfare – The variance will not adversely affect public health, safety or
welfare.
5. Ordinance Intent - With the location of the property the request would not be opposed to the general
spirit and intent of the zoning regulations.
Respectfully,
Cook Flatt & Strobel Engineers, P.A.
Lance W. Scott, P.E.
Vice President