BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, August 23, 2001

 

Chairperson Rootes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Boone County Commission Chambers having a quorum present.

Chairperson Rootes explained the function of the Board of Adjustment. She stated that all decisions are based upon the Boone County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, which are considered to be part of the record of the proceedings.

Roll call was taken:

Present: Linda Rootes, Chairperson

Larry Bossaller, Vice-Chairperson

Tom Trabue

Kay Clementz

Absent: Cindy Bowne

 

Also present: Thad Yonke, Staff Bill Florea, Staff

Paula Evans, Secretary

Minutes of July 26, 2001 meeting were approved with no corrections.

REQUEST

  1. Request by Susan M. Spencer for a variance that would allow a building closer than the 25í setback as

required in an R-S district as provided by Section 10. A. of the Zoning Regulations on .28 acres, located at 1710 Prathersville Rd., Columbia.

Planner, Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that the current zoning is R-M (moderate density residential), as is the adjacent zoning. This site located at the corner of Prathersville Road and Tower Drive, just north of Columbia. There is a single family dwelling on the property. The applicant would like to build a two-car garage on the property. The applicant would like to build the garage 12-feet from the Tower Drive right of way line.

The subject tract is lot 11 of Gaslight Acres subdivision, plat 2, which was platted in 1965. R-M is the original zoning classification. The requested variance is to allow a building closer than the 25-foot setback, as required in an R-M district as provided by Section 10.A. of the zoning regulations. Staff notified 55 property owners

Present: Susan Spencer, 1710 Prathersville Road, Columbia

James Spencer, 1710 Prathersville Road, Columbia

Mrs. Spencer stated she had a hand out that she would like to present to the Members. Mrs. Spencer did so.

The handout states the reasons for the location of the garage. Applicants thought about different locations for the garage and came up with four different scenarios and that is what is in the handout, to show the Members the different ways they could put the garage. Applicants have to be careful of the property lines, the boundary for the building line and the utility easement. Mrs. Spencer stated that ideally, applicants prefer view A, it is closer to the road, but way over the building line. The next suggestion would be view D, because views B and C would decrease the value of the property by putting the garage directly behind the house. Mrs. Spencer stated she spoke with an appraiser about that. Views B and C would also make it to where applicants couldnít see out of the house. It would also make it hard to resell the home.

Chairperson Rootes stated the Members didnít have time to look over these views thoroughly at this time. Chairperson Rootes stated that view A looks like the garage would be all the way to the property line.

Mrs. Spencer stated that when they made that drawing, they didnít know they werenít supposed to be that close to the road. Views A and D would be the best scenarioís property value wise. They would be able to see out of the house and enable to see anyone in the back lot. If applicants placed it further in to the yard, it would make for a lot less yard. Mrs. Spencer stated that these drawings only showed the front lot. Applicants own another lot behind the home. But can not build on it because it is a separate lot and it doesnít have a home on it. Applicants would have to build a home to build the garage. Applicants are trying to keep everything on the front lot, so they could possibly sell sometime in the future.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke in favor of the request.

No one spoke in opposition of the request.

Closed to public hearing.

Member Trabue stated the Board has been presented with these types of things a couple of different times. Member Trabue stated he went to the site to see the property and felt that applicants probably did own the lot behind the house by the way everything was maintained. In order to be able to utilize that parcel for the garage Member Trabue asked staff if applicants could replat and make the two lots in to one.

Planner, Thad Yonke stated that staff went over a number of different scenarios with Mrs. Spencer, the problem you run in to is that almost every scenario brought them back to the Board, requesting more variances than this.

Member Trabue stated that is because of the 3 to 1 ratio and lot size and those types of things.

Mr. Yonke stated that was correct, as well as a 25-foot building line being imposed on the new plat, as opposed to the current 20-foot building line. If applicants wanted to build a garage on the back lot, without replatting, applicants are back to the Board for a variance. This is a little different than we find on some of them, in that they donít really have a replat option.

Member Trabue stated that made sense.

Chairperson Rootes asked why the current building line 20-feet.

Mr. Yonke stated it was an old building line from the plat. Basically, this plat was done prior to any planning, much less any regulations related to it. Off of a road like that, currently, if it were to be a public road, a 25-foot building setback would be required. This is a variance from both the 20-foot building line on the plat and the 25-foot setback from the roadway.

Member Trabue stated the 20-foot is the controlling feature in this case, because this is what was platted.

Chairperson Rootes stated the request is to go from 20-foot to 12-foot, not 25-foot to 12-foot.

Mr. Yonke stated that was basically the case.

Member Trabue stated he wanted to explore one additional option, which would seem to fit. It is similar to rotating the garage as in option B, but setting it back up against the 6-foot utility easement. Member Trabue asked the applicants if that was an option they would consider.

Mrs. Spencer stated it would cut the view completely with the other lot. They wouldnít be able to see what was going on at the back lot. With the people in the trailer court, applicants have problems with the back lot. If the trailer court wasnít there and they werenít having problems, it would not be a big deal. Mrs. Spencer stated they have a 6-foot utility easement and when applicants spoke with the electric company, they said they prefer a 10-foot utility easement. Mrs. Spencer stated she is trying to give herself leeway for that.

Member Trabue stated it was a large garage.

Mrs. Spencer stated it was a two-car garage and wanted to leave room for her husband to work on things as well.

Member Bossaller asked if Tower Drive was going to be expanded.

Chairperson Rootes asked staff what the plans were for Tower Drive.

Mr. Yonke stated that Tower Drive was platted, so it looks like it was intended to be a public road, but no public dedication statement can be found on the plat. It was platted in 1965, which means it has been used by the public for a long enough that someone could make an argument that its been dedicated by use. It is really a mess. It is hard to get Public Works to determine what Tower Driveís true status is. The clear status is that the road is not publicly maintained by the County. How it would be utilized in a featured development there is questionable. Originally we were concerned that the industrial tract that we had that was behind this would use this as primary access. In the years that have gone on since then, that has been annexed in to the City, their development proposals to actually develop that piece of property with a road network within it, that may actually take the all the traffic in the other direction. Staff doesnít know what is going on other than it does not have a dedicated right of way that we can find currently.

Member Trabue stated that on this particular section of Tower Drive, it dives right in to the water tower, there would have to be some type of a jog to make it work. It is unfortunate that in this case, there is no a way for them to put this back on that other lot. That is probably what applicants would like to do if they could find a way.

Mrs. Spencer stated not necessarily, it is too far from the house.

Chairperson Rootes stated that a lot of the way that development occurs now with setbacks, we end up with our buildings in the middle of our space and end up with a lot of negative space all the way around the buildings that canít be utilized very well for living. It really is an attractive scenario when you can put the buildings closer to the line and have positive space left in the middle. Chairperson Rootes stated she was sympathetic with wanting the garage over as is practical. If applicants placed it at the 20-feet, there would be almost 4-feet difference between the corner of the house and the building.

Chairperson Rootes asked Member Trabue from an engineering standpoint, how does he feel about 12-foot as being appropriate for the space in front of the garage.

Member Trabue stated that is probably not a problem, it is actually 12-feet from the right of way line as opposed to being from the pavement. If that were to be improved to a 20-foot standard asphalt, which could happen in the future as an improved roadway, that would still allow for plenty of room for one vehicle to park off of the edge of the pavement and still not be hanging out over the road.

Mrs. Spencer stated they have currently 25-foot from the side of the road to the Spencerís property. That would be 12-foot from the property line.

Member Trabue stated that would allow applicants approximately 20 to 25-feet from the face of the garage to the edge of the pavement if that road were to be improved to some level.

Mr. Yonke stated the plat leaves a 50-foot right of way for that roadway.

Chairperson Rootes asked if a sidewalk would ever be constructed within that 50-foot right of way.

Mr. Yonke stated if it is constructed under the City guidelines, it would go within the 50-feet. It is hard to say, because it is not a curb and gutter street. If it were being a newly constructed street, it would be curb and gutter, it might go inside the 50-foot too. Since it is not a curb and gutter, it is hard to say where a sidewalk would go, it probably would go in the right of way space.

Member Trabue stated it would likely go in the right of way space, that is the typical.

Chairperson Rootes stated 50-foot was enough.

Member Trabue stated absolutely.

Mrs. Spencer stated it has really changed since they first moved to this site. They have improved the way their property looks and it seems to be rubbing off on the neighbors.

Member Trabue stated he didnít know how many other Members got to look at the site, but it is very nice property and several of the surrounding properties have been upgraded as well. It is very well maintained.

Chairperson Rootes asked staff if they had any response from surrounding property owners.

Planner, Bill Florea stated he had one call. It was just a question of what applicants were doing.

Member Trabue asked applicants to describe the type of structure to be built.

Mr. Spencer stated it would be a basic pole barn with metal siding.

Member Trabue stated it was going to be a pretty good sized structure in that space.

Mrs. Spencer stated that Mr. Spencer has a 22-foot, extended cab pickup truck.

Mr. Spencer stated they would like to pull in to the side of the building instead of the end, which applicants were originally going to do. Considering the truck is 22-foot long pulling it in to a 24-foot wide space, it doesnít leave much room.

Member Trabue stated that was his only concern is that it is going to be a big structure. Almost house size with a 10-foot eve height. It may be a little overpowering.

Chairperson Rootes stated she could understand why they would not want to build directly behind the house.

Mrs. Spencer stated she could show photographs of the proposed structure and the color schemes.

Chairperson Rootes stated that would enter in to the decision.

Mr. Spencer stated they would not have considered this project if they had not talked to all the neighbors. So far the neighbors are for the request.

Mrs. Spencer stated the neighbors have offered to come and help build.

Chairperson Rootes stated the Board has discussed the difficulties in trying to find another solution and doesnít believe theyíve raised a concern that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the County.

 

Member Trabue made and Member Bossaller seconded a motion to allow a request by Susan M. Spencer for a variance to allow a building closer than the 25í setback as required in an R-S district as provided by Section 10. A. of the Zoning Regulations on .28 acres, located at 1710 Prathersville Rd., Columbia.

Chairman Rootes Y Member Bossaller Y Member Trabue Y Member Clementz Y

Motion to approve request carries 4 Yes 0 No

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

 

OLD BUSINESS

None.

NEW BUSINESS

None.

ADJOURN

Meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Paula L Evans

Secretary

Minutes approved ______ of __________, 2001.