The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1989-10-26 Board of Zoning Adjustment Minutes BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1989 7:10 PM Those members of the Board of Zoning Adjustment present were: Gary Brenner, Janet Keating, Jim Wedua and Eugene Richardson. Floyd Best was absent. Mr. James R. Davis, 2404 N.W. Osage Circle, appeared before the board requesting a set-back variance for 1906 and 1905 N.W. 45th Terrace, but withdrew his application before any discussion or action was taken. Mr. James R. Davis, 2404 N.W. Osage Circle, appeared before the board presenting a application for variances on the proposed Indian Hills Estates. He is asking for a change in certain lot widths from 100' to 80'. (20' variance). The lots in the application are attached as exhibit "A". Janet Keating said she felt the board should consider phase one only of the three phases planned. Mr. Skinner, Mr. Davis's attorney, questioned the legality of the boards basis for requesting this and Mr. Davis added he felt the board should act on all phases at once. Sandra Kuhlman, Woodland Rd.,said the developer should build the road and have all the utilities in place before any construction could begin. John West, 4502 N.W. Pawnee, asked to clarify the lot-width proposal and the square footage of the proposed buildings. Mr. Sam Aylett, the surveyor for the developer, said the smallest lot at the building line was 80'. Mr. Skinner said the square footage would be no smaller than 1,300 sq.ft. on any building. Mary Carlson, Woodland Ave.,said many people would like to see what the development would look like before development. Larry Shepard, 4501 N.W. Pawnee, said his rnncern was that Mr. Davis had a responsibility to prove the needed variance and its effect on existing neighbors. Mr. Skinner explained the variance is needed because no other community requires a 100' lot width on this type of development. Mr. Aylett provided plat examples of other area developments that were similar. Mr. Frank Martin, Pawnee Drive, asked Mr. Skinner if the city was illegally enforcing the 100' lot width, in his opinion and Mr. Skinner replied yes. Deno Howard, representing the city attorney, responded how the lot widths were arrived at when they were adopted earlier this year. Mr. Frank Martin asked Mr. Aylett when the proposed plat was drawn and Mr. Aylett responded they were drawn about three months ago. Terry Bennett, 1905 N.W. 45 Terrace, asked how many lots would be lost if the 100' lot widths were enforced and Mr. Aylett said 15 lots. Mr. Bennett questioned the property value impace. Page 2 Oct. 26, 1989 BZA Sheree Shepard, 4501 N.W. Pawnee, asked if Mr. Davis presented proof of needing a variance.. Mr.Skinner replied that loosing 15 lots at a cost of $450,000 would be a hardship and make the development not feasable. Mary Carlson compared the build-up of the Garney project to her opinion of a build-down of the Davis project. Mr. Davis responded with comparisons of the two projects. Sue Hanis, of the audience, expressed her opinion of theGarney project. Larry Shepard questioned the marketability in difference between a 100' lot width and a 80' lot width and if a difference in price had been established between the two lot sizes. Mr. Skinner said it would not be marlcetable at the difference in price. Mr. Aylett responded costs of lots would be 20°6 more at a 100' width than the 80' lot width. Janet Clay, Woodland Road, asked how many lots were effected and Janet Keating responded 41 of 53. Mr. Kuhlman asked. how the variance effected the set-back and Mrs. Keating responded that that had no effect. Mr. Gary Brenner asked if Mr. Davis knew what the price of the lots would be at 80' lot widths. Mr. Davis said $22,000.00 approximately compared to $24,000 at 100' widths.. Mr. Kulhman asked to explain the law pertaining to a blanket variance for all phases rather than per-each phase. It was explained by Deno Howard that the board could handle it either way. Larry Shepard said he felt the city had made several compromises already on this development compared to the law already established. Marsha Bennett, asked if the lots were larger (re-plated) how many would be lost and Mrs. Keating responded with 15. Jim Wedua moved we grant the variance in all three phases on the lots listed on exhibit "A" and that the plat-is not to be changed except to conform with changes agreed upon with the Planning Commission and that no lot is to be less than 80' wide at the building line. Gary Brenner seconded and the votes were as follows: Richardson, Wedua, Keating and Brenner voting yes and Floyd Best was absent. Motion and variance approved. Brenner moved to adjourd the meeting and Wedua seconded.. Meeting adjourned at 8:27PM. Res tful~ ubmitted, Garver Secretary EXHIBIT "A" INDIAN HILLS ESTATES Lots approved for 80' minimum lot-widths. (20' variance) Lots: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 40 41 42 47 48 49 50 51 53 j• Y APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE BEFORE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT SUBMIT APPLICATION IN DUPLICATE ~~. _ ~ NAME: ~~}lrJ~ / `,/ / 1/S /} ~~,~ ADDRESS:O~~~ /Il-GU C./~S~7~l.:~it:.:~O-r-f~ PHONE NUMBER: ~/~j~S~7- ~~ ~~ Application is hereby made to the Riverside Board of Zoning Adjustment regarding land at (general location) :1/(~O/Ri/ /~/~S ~S/~-7~S Nature of proposed variance: L;,~f TiSf~~ (,~%~~ ~ LptS' ~/LO-~Y/ //'~ /~Tf L~/C?~ ~7 ~~cT f GG/~O~• UAL ; A.u c e mF ,t D.~T Is application made as an appeal from a decision o t e Zoning Enforcement Person? ~/,¢,5 Date of decision ~~a8` /~~f -~ Is application made as an appeal from a decision of the Board of Aldermen? Date of decision Please state the reason for the necessity of said application: The fee of $30.00 is attached to this application. CASH CHECK~_ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. I HAVE READ AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE PRESENT CITY ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI AND AGREE TO ABIDE BY ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE ORDINANCES OF SAID CITY WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULAgTING CONSTTRUCTION OR THE PERFOR NCE OF CONSTRUCTION. DATE: ///~s'~~/ d,v~,c.o gf,L,,,,o A 1 ant s Signature IF A CORPORATION, THE PRESIDENT MUST IGN WITH A SEAL OF CORPORATION AND ATTESTATION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION. Corporation Name By: Press ent x 2 ATTEST: Secretary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ZONING ENFORCEMENT PERSON Date Action taken by Zoning Enforcement Person: Date Zoning Enforcement Person s S gnature -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BOARD OF ALDERMEN Action taken by Board of Aldermen: Date Member of Board of Al ermen s Signature --------------------------------------------------------------------------- BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT The Board of Zoning Adjustment shall require all applicants for a variance to prove (place "X" before those items the applicant proves): _~ (a) Relief is necessary because of the unique character of the property rather than for personal considerations= and (b) Applying the strict letter of the ordinance would result in "unnecessary .hardship'; 'unnecessary hardship is shown by the following elements: (1) The land in question cannot yield the reasonable return if used only for the purpose allowed in that zones and f ,. ` 3 , (2) That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itselfs and (3) That the use to be authorized by the variance will not offer the essential character of the locality, and ,, (4) Imposition of such a hardship is not necessary for the preservation of the plans] and (5) Granting the variance will result in substantial justice to all. Si s Date Date APPROVAL ~~ _~ - ~ ~ ~~ DENIAL Board of Zoning Adjustment's Comments: ~kr of ~ba'rd of Zing Aa] iature