BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES

Boone County Government Center

801 E. Walnut, Columbia MO

May 25, 1995 - 7:00 p.m.

 

 

PRESENT: Tom Schneider, Chairman

Keith Kirkpatrick

Tom Trabue

ABSENT: Norma Keil

Jerry Kaufman

ALSO PRESENT: Stan Shawver, Director

Noel Boyt, Secretary

Chairman Schneider called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Boone County Government Center. Roll call was answered as above.

Minutes of April 27, 1995, were reviewed. Board member Kirkpatrick made and Board member Schneider seconded the motion to approve the minutes. Motion was approved by acclimation.

Chairperson Schneider made a procedural statement explaining Board procedures.

REQUEST # 1

Request by Marsh Building Co. for a variance of the minimum lot size for a duplex in R-M zoning district, located at 4620 W. Southview Dr.

Chairman Schneider asked Mr. Marsh if he wanted to continue or did he want to reschedule the hearing to the next meeting. Mr. Marsh advised to continue.

Chairman Schneider disclosed to the board that his partner, Turner Jones does legal work for Mr. Marsh. Chairman Schneider stated it would not effect his view on the application in any way.

Mr. Marsh approached the board. He stated the lot in question was zoned for duplex but the lot itself did not have the total square feet needed for a duplex lot. Mr. Marsh gave the Board pictures of the site.

Chairman Schneider stated he had a plat for Country Hills subdivision lot 105; he asked if lots 104, 77, and 78 were duplexes. Mr. Marsh advised the lots had duplexes on them.

Chairman Schneider asked if land to the West was owned by the city. Mr. Marsh stated all the property to the West was owned by the city.

Chairman Schneider stated that it was the sewer plant "buffer" that was purchased. and it was at the edge of the flood plain. Mr. Marsh agreed.

The chairman opened the public hearing.

Harold Chapman, approached the Board. He advised he lived in the neighborhood. He stated he did not have any objections to the duplex. He asked why there was a 10,000 sq. ft. minimum size requirement necessary to have a duplex.

Chairman Schneider advised that generally it was a density control. The County Commission adopted a rule that the minimum for any particular use would be "x" square feet. Chairman Schneider did not know why 10,000 sq. ft. as opposed to 9,000 or 11,000 sq. ft. was chosen. He asked if Director Shawver could comment.

Director Shawver stated the zoning category for a single family dwelling has a minimum lot size of 7,000 sq. ft. The philosophical question is whether a single family dwelling should occupy the same size lot as a lot containing essentially two dwellings. The standard that has been established is that two families should occupy a lot larger than a single family would occupy.

Mr. Chapman asked if the property to the west is in the flood plain, was it subject to development in the future.

Chairman Schneider asked Mr. Marsh if the property immediately west to your lot 105 is the City of Columbia boundary line? Mr. Marsh said it was owned by the city.

Chairman Schneider explained that the City of Columbia bought that area to the west much of which is in the flood plain (not all) as buffer for the sewer treatment plant which is over the hill to the west. Since the City of Columbia owns that he did not think it would be developed as duplexes or single family dwellings.

Mr. Marsh stated the city did own property west of lot 105 but he still owned a tract of land (2.9 acres) west and south of lot 105 in the Bellview Acres Subdivision.

Director Shawver stated he had received a letter the day before from Lowell Patterson, Director of Public Works Department, City of Columbia, addressing lot 105. Mr. Patterson stated in the letter he had received notice of the variance. Mr. Patterson asked that this letter be made part of the record since he did have some concerns about the lot. Director Shawver gave Mr. Marsh a copy of the letter for his records prior to the meeting.

 

Chairman Schneider stated that the letter did not take any position one way or the other on the variance. The letter did wanted to address the development issue.

Director Shawver stated the City’s concern was that the fill placed on the line could not support the building site on lot 105 if it was removed from their property.

Chairman Schneider stated that would be a concern if it were a single family or a duplex.

Chairman Schneider requested to Mr. Marsh that the letter be given to his engineers.

Board Member Kirkpatrick moved and Member Schneider seconded motion to approve the request by Marsh Building Co. for a variance from the minimum lot size for a duplex in the R-M zoning district, located at 4620 W. Southview Dr; allowing a duplex to be built on 8200 sq. ft. rather than the required 10,000 sq. ft.

Chairman Schneider advised he saw no problem with the variance.

Member Trabue stated he was familiar with the area, the development was platted prior to Planning & Zoning, the duplexes were consistent with the existing use and should not impact the area.

Voting as follow:

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Tom Schneider yes

Tom Trabue yes

Motion passed unanimously 3 yes

 

REQUEST # 2

Request by Marcia A. Rasmussen for a variance from the building setback for property located at 5321 W. Tracy Ct.

Randy Flow, attorney for the applicant addressed the board. He advised that the owner Marcia Rasmussen was present. He stated the applicant inadvertently built a garage in the middle of a right-of-way and too close to the rear property line.

Mr. Flow advised the improvements made to the property were approximately $25,000.00 including an asphalt drive (marked "A" on the diagram) and a garage.

Mr. Flow advised that Ms. Rasmussen had asked the builder about obtaining the building permit and the builder advised her that was something he did. 'Bottom line is ', he never got building permit.

When she discovered no permit had been taken out, Ms. Rasmussen sought to obtain a permit. However, at that time she discovered that the garage had been built inside an established right of way. Before a permit could be issued, the right of way had to be vacated, and a variance obtained. The variance was needed because the structure was too close to the property line, even with the right of way vacated.

Ms. Rasmussen followed requirements and had the right of way vacated, securing and recording access easements for those properties to the east of her lot.

Mr. Flow stated he had been out to her property. It is a fairly rural area; Twin Lakes estates is a small subdivision. She has a nice asphalt drive; the garage is a nice addition onto her house. He spoke with some of the neighbors when he was getting easements and they told him it was an improvement to the area. To the south of the property is unimproved land. Ms. Rasmussen has spoken to the property owner to the south. Ms. Rasmussen has offered to purchase some of the property to take care of the problem. The owner told her she did not have a problem with the situation.

Mr. Flow stated that Ms. Rasmussen was in this situation through no fault of her own.

Chairman Schneider asked Mr. Flow or his client if they knew how large the parcel to the south was?

In looking over further maps, Member Kirkpatrick stated there was 3.8 acre tract immediately south of the Rasmussen lot.

Mr. Flow stated that the property owner on the south did have the land platted, but it has not been developed as a subdivision to the south.

Member Kirkpatrick asked for clarification. He asked if the right-of-way that the garage is sitting next to was a dedicated public right-of-way. Mr. Flow corrected stating "sitting on." Member Kirkpatrick asked how this happened.

Mr. Flow stated her house is hooked on to this garage. She had plans, got a builder and contracted him to build it. The builder just never got a building permit.

Member Kirkpatrick ask Director Shawver if a building permit was ever issued. Director Shawver advised that if a building permit application was completed a permit could not have been issued since the garage was in the right-of-way.

Member Kirkpatrick asked if the right-of-way was serving the egress/ingress to the two lots immediately to the east?

Mr. Flow stated it did not, there was nothing there. This was not suitable for a road.

The lots to the east have access by a driveway that was already there. We now have easements from the property owners whose lots it goes across and have been recorded.

Member Trabue asked how did it access lot 53? Mr. Flow approached the board to show it on the map.

Ms. Rasmussen spoke up and stated there had never been a road. The road stopped at her lot and never went through, the access to the two houses to the east comes from the other side of the lake.

Chairman Schneider stated the question now was to if the two lots were land locked. He stated that with the access easement to the east, the lots are not.

Mr. Flow again pointed out the location of the garage, and other accesses. Mr. Flow stated easements for the different property were obtained as not to land lock their property.

Director Shawver advised that on May 1, the County Commission accepted the easements for the access to the eastern lots, and vacated the extension of Tracy Ct.

Member Kirkpatrick asked what should the side setbacks be? Mr. Flow did not know the distance, but it was too close to the side of the garage.

Director Shawver advised it should be a rear setback since the house is oriented towards the lake. This would require a 25’ setback. Member Kirkpatrick said it was 14’ inside of the setback even after the road vacation.

Mr. Flow stated that to rectify the situation, Ms. Rasmussen has offered to buy land to the south.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked Director Shawver if other comments had been voiced. Director Shawver advised a number of calls had been received asking information how it was built into the road, how the road was vacated, but no calls of opposition. Notification was sent to 34 property owners, a substantial number of property owners.

Member Kirkpatrick asked again if a building permit has ever been obtained? Mr. Flow stated a permit could not be obtained until the variance is approved.

Chairman Schneider confirmed with Director Shawver that if the variance was approved, then it would be required that a building permit application be made. Director Shawver answered, yes.

Member Trabue asked with the shape of this lot and direction of the house, how is it determined what would be the front, vs. the rear, vs. the side, except that this is a road easement across the south side? Director Shawver advised the road easement would be the rear and towards the lake would be the front.

Chairman Schneider stated that in the abstract he would have some difficulty with cutting the setback by more than half. In this particular application, he did not see a problem with it. What would happen he stated, the property owner to the south would effectively adjust her lots to create the additional setbacks if that property ever develops.

Member Trabue stated they were already large lots.

Chairman Schneider continued that another way of stating it is that the market place will in fact generate that spacing which is what setback requirements are all about.

Member Kirkpatrick agreed with Chairman Schneider. Member Kirkpatrick continued that it gave him cause to wonder why the most obvious part of the process, such as to obtain a building permit was not followed through with.

Chairman Schneider stated that if the owner had not gotten the permit, he would have a jaundiced view, but when you hire someone else to do the job, you expect them to do it properly. He did not know how it could be policed, other than stopping them (the builder) at the lumber yard.

Member Kirkpatrick stated that forcing destruction of the garage would probably be extreme so he did not foresee any other remedy, other than a variance.

Chairman Schneider made and Member Trabue second motion to approve request by Marcia A. Rasmussen for a variance from the building setback for property located at 5321 W. Tracy Ct allowing a garage to be 14’ from the rear property line, rather than 25’ as required by the regulations.

Voting was as follows:

Tom Schneider yes Bill Trabue yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion passed unanimously 3 yes

Chairman Schneider suggested that Director Shawver would see "them" in the morning for a building permit application.

Director Shawver welcomed new member Tom Trabue to the Board.

Member Kirkpatrick made motion to adjourn. Motion passed by acclimation.

Meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m.

 

Respectrully submitted,

 

 

 

M. Noel Boyt

Approved June 22, 1995