Board of Zoning Adjustments

BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Monday, July 20, 2026 – 6:00 PM Council Chambers - 203 Paul Street NOTICE OF MEETING - Public notice is hereby given that a Regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Pleasant Hill, Missouri, will be held at the City Hall in the City of Pleasant Hill, Missouri, on Monday, July 20, 2026, to consider and act upon the matters on the following tentative agenda and such other matters as may be presented at the meeting and determined to be appropriate for discussion at that time. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA 1. June 15, 2026 Meeting Minutes PUBLIC HEARING 2. Non- Use Variance Application: 2100 1/2 N State Route 7 - Off-Premise Sign 3. Non-Use Variance: 700 W Miller - Street Frontage Variance REGULAR AGENDA 4. Consideration of the Non-Use Variance: 2100 1/2 N State Route 7 - Off-Premise Sign 5. Consideration of the Non-Use Variance Application: 700 W Miller - Street Frontage ADJOURN In accordance with ADA guidelines, if you require accommodations (i.e. qualified interpreter, large print, and/or hearing assistance) please notify this office at (816-540-3135) no later than forty-eight hours (48) prior to the scheduled commencement of the meeting. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS – July 20, 2026 Page |1 1  Item 1. Board of Zoning Adjustments Monday,June 15, 2026 at 6:00pm City Council Chambers In attendance: Teresa Schaefer, Chad Johnson, Russ Petry, Linda Shanks Absent: Aaron Widhalm City Staff: Missy Gentry Other: Juan De La Luz, Sandra De La Luz, Julie Blaise, Brady Tarwater, Kristin Ketola, Donald Rea Johnson declared a quorum. Shanks made a motion to approve the consent agenda including the minutes, seconded by Petry. Unanimous aye. 1. Public Hearing: Non-use variance detached building side and rear setbacks Location: 202 N Boardman Applicant: Juan De La Luz Schaefer made a motion to open the public hearing, seconded by Shanks. Unanimous aye Staff comment given by M. Gentry: Staff received an application for a non-use variance to allow for side and rear setbacks be 3.5 feet for a detached building. The applicant intends to place a 14ft X 30ft detached building on an existing concrete slab. The applicant installed the concrete before conversations with city staff regarding the required setbacks of 7.5 feet. Staff would note the lot size allows for the minimum setback of 7.5 feet to easily be accommodated. Applicant comment given by Juan De La Luz: Mr. De La Luz gave a statement that the intent of the building is for storage only of yard equipment and other such items. If the variance is not granted it would be an incurred cost to him as the concrete would be required to be widened to accommodate the setbacks. Public Comment: Brady Tarwater, 206 N Boardman, is the adjoining neighbor to the north of the location and is supportive of the variance request. Commission questions: Johnson questioned if the building could be moved forward or west on the existing drive/pad. Gentry stated that could occur. Applicant stated he did not want to move it closer to the house. Schaefer confirmed that he did not apply for a permit before pouring the concrete, the applicant stated that was correct. 2  Item 1. Schaefer confirmed that we have had setbacks for many years. Gentry confirmed that yes, setbacks have been in effect for many years, only recently would the concrete driveway setback have changed. The building is over 200 square feet so a building permit would have been required at any time. Schaefer made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Petry. Unanimous aye Board discussion: Shanks expressed her desire to offer community support as much as possible. Schaefer stated that just because you don’t know the rules doesn’t mean they don’t apply, if a building permit had been applied for first the information would have been provided. Johnson made a motion to approve the variance as applied, seconded by Shanks. Roll call vote as follows: Shanks aye, Schaeffer nay, Petry nay, Johnson aye, with a tie vote, Johnson as chairman cast the deciding vote of aye. Variance is approved. With no other items to discuss, Shanks made a motion to adjourn seconded by Petry. Unanimous aye. ______________________ Approved ______________________ Attest: ______________________ Chad Johnson Missy Gentry Board Chairman Development Coordinator 3 Item 2. 4 Item 2. 5 Item 2. 6 Item 2. 7 Item 2. 8 Item 2. 9 Item 2. 10 Item 2. 11 Item 2. 12 Item 2. 13 Item 2. 14 Item 2. 15 Item 2. 16 Item 2. 17 Item 2. 18 Item 2. 19  Item 2. Memorandum To: Board of Zoning Adjustment From: Missy Gentry, Development Coordinator Date: June 15, 2026 Subject: Off-Premise Sign Variance General Information Applicant/Owner ABB Investments, LLC Nick & Kayla Hanna 1448 Woodland Road Greenwood, MO 64034 Requested Action Off-Premise Sign Variance Property Location 2100 ½ N State Route 7 Current Zoning C-1 (General Business District) Proposed Concept The applicant has recently completed a lot split creating Lots 1 & 2 of Goppert Financial Bank Subdivision. With the lot split the existing sign which promotes the business on Lot 1 (Goppert Financial Bank) is now located on Lot 2. By definition this is now an off-premise sign. Variance Request The applicant is asking the the existing off-premise pole sign remain located on Lot 2 as currently installed to promote the adjoining business on Lot 1 (Goppert Financial Bank) Board’s Authority The Board of Zoning Adjustment may grant a variance, only if application of the UDC when applied to a particular property, would significantly interfere with the use of the property or result in practical difficulties for a non-use variance. The Board’s authority is limited by the statutes of the State of Missouri and the UDC. The Board may only grant a variance if, in its discretion, each of the variance criteria is met. It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate to the Board that each of the criteria have been met. Variance Criteria 1. The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique and peculiar to the property in 20  Item 2. question and which is not ordinarily found in the same zone or district, and further, is not created by an action or actions of the property owner or applicant. a. Applicant Comment: At the time of erection, the Goppert Bank sign was fully on- premises and lawfully conforming. It became non-conforming only when the property was subdivided into Lots 1 and 2 - a platting process driven by the City’s own 150ft frontage requirement. This condition was not recreated by any action of the owner, it arose directly from compliance with city code. This circumstance is unique and peculiar to this specific property and is not ordinarily found in the same zone or district. b. Staff Comment: Staff does not feel there are any conditions unique or peculiar to the property. The variance request is the result of the applicant's subdivision of the property to comply with the City's minimum 150-foot road frontage requirement. Staff recognizes that, unless the existing sign was relocated, the area now identified as Lot 2 would not have met the City's frontage requirement and would have been undevelopable. 2. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. a. Applicant Comment: Maintaining the existing sign causes no detriment to adjacent property owners or residents. The sign has stood harmoniously in its current location for over a decade without complaint. Denying the variance would require construction of additional monument signage on Highway 7 in close proximity to existing signage - an outcome far more disruptive to the neighborhood and adjacent property owners than simply preserving the status quo. b. Staff Comment: This variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. 3. Strict application of the provisions of the City’s zoning regulations of which the variance is requested will constitute practical difficulties to the property owner. Missouri Courts have stated that the following factors are helpful in determining practical difficulties: (1) How substantial the deviation (variance) is in relation to the requirement; (2) Whether there will be a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or substantial detriment to the adjoining properties; (3) Can the problem be corrected by a feasible alternative to the grant of a variance; (4) Whether fairness can be achieved by allowing the variance. a. Applicant Comment:(1) The deviation is minimal: the sign is pre-existing, physically unchanged, and previously conforming - it deviates only because subdivision moved a property line, not because a new non-conforming sign was erected. Relocating to Lot 1 violates height restrictions. (2) No change to neighborhood character; the sign has been a fixture for over a decade. (3) Two workable alternatives exist, both utilizing the existing monument: (a) grant the variance as-is while Hanna & Co Dental mounts building signage on Lot 2; or (b) allow both businesses to share the monument, adding an on-premise element for Lot 2 and reducing non-conformance. Both avoid new highway construction. (4) Fairness is fully served under either option. b. Staff Comment: This variance will not affect the character of the neighborhood, nor will it cause detriment to the adjoining properties. Strict application of this specific regulation will not cause practical difficulties to the property owner. 4. The variance requested will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community. a. Applicant Comment: The variance requires no physical alteration to the sign or 21  Item 2. property. The sign has coexisted safely at this location for over a decade without incident, posing no threat to public health, safety, moral, or general welfare. In fact, it reduces risks: avoiding new monument construction on a busy Highway 7 corridor eliminates construction activity and reduces visual distraction for drivers. b. Staff Comment: Staff does not anticipate that the requested variance would adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community, as no physical modifications to the existing sign or site are proposed. 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. a. Applicant Comment: The variance does not conflict with the spirit and intent of the sign ordinance. When erected, the sign was fully on-premises and lawfully conforming; its non-conforming status arose involuntarily from a city-required platting process - not from any attempt to circumvent sign regulations. The ordinance’s purpose is to prevent new off-premise advertising, not to penalize signs made technically non-conforming through an involuntary subdivision. Granting this variance is fully consistent with that purpose. b. Staff Comment: Staff recognizes that the existing sign was lawfully installed prior to the subdivision and that allowing it to remain could reduce the need for additional monument signage along Highway 7. However, the Unified Development Code generally intends for signs to advertise businesses located on the same property. While the request has merit from a corridor aesthetics standpoint, staff believes the Board should carefully consider whether allowing a permanent off-premise sign is consistent with the overall intent of the ordinance. 6. Substantial justice will be done by the granting of this variance. (Why is this request fair to all affected?) a. Applicant Comment: Substantial justice will be done under either of two acceptable outcomes. Option A: grant the variance as -is; Hanna & Co Dental will mount building signage on Lot 2 - no new monument construction on Highway 7. Option B: allow both businesses to share the existing monument. Crucially, once Hanna & Co Dental is advertised on the sign, the sign becomes on-premise for the business located on Lot 2- precisely what the sign ordinance requires of signage at that location. The degree of non-conformance is thereby reduced, not merely excused. Under both options: the Goppert family retains their landmark; the City avoids additional Highway 7 signage; the dental practice receives appropriate visibility. Either outcome achieves substantial justice for all parties. b. Staff Comment: The existing sign became an off-premise sign following the applicant's subdivision of the property. During the subdivision review process, the original lot configuration did not meet the Unified Development Code requirement for a minimum of 150 feet of road frontage. The lot lines were revised to comply with that requirement, allowing the newly created lot to remain developable which resulted in the existing sign being located on Lot 2. Staff recognizes that this circumstance arose, in part, from compliance with the City's subdivision standards. However, because the condition resulted from the requested subdivision rather than a unique characteristic of the property itself, except for that unless the sign is relocated, the existing green space is undevelopable. 22  Item 2. Overall Staff Comments: Staff recognizes the applicant's desire to retain the existing monument sign for the business on Lot 1 and supports the broader planning objective of reducing visual clutter along the Highway 7 corridor. Allowing the existing monument sign to remain in place on Lot 2 while advertising the business on Lot 1 could eliminate the need for an additional freestanding, which is consistent with good planning practices that seek to minimize the number of signs and maintain an attractive commercial corridor. However, staff also notes that the Board's decision must ultimately be based upon the variance criteria established in the Unified Development Code. While staff is supportive of reducing visual noise and limiting the construction of additional signage, the Board must determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that the required variance criteria have been met. 23  Item 2. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING before the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Pleasant Hill, Missouri to be held at 6:00 pm, Monday, July 20, 2026 in the Council Chambers at 203 Paul Street, to consider the application for Off-Premise Sign variance brought forth by Nick and Kayla Hanna on behalf of ABB Investments of the following described property. THE LAND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Lot 2 of Goppert Financial Bank Subdivision Commonly known as 2100 ½ N State Route 7. The application and corresponding information in regards to the ABB Investments off- premise sign variance is available for review at City Hall during regular business hours. Written comments are invited. Jodie Wasson City Clerk Dated: June 15, 2026 To be published the weeks of: July 1, 2026 July 8, 2026 24 Item 3. 25 Item 3. 26 Item 3. 27 Item 3. 28 Item 3. 29 Item 3. 30  Item 3. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING before the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Pleasant Hill, Missouri to be held at 6:00 pm, Monday, July 20, 2026 in the Council Chambers at 203 Paul Street, to consider the application for a street frontage/ingress/egress variance brought forth by Joel & Victoria Parris on behalf of Janice Kessler of the following described property. THE LAND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 700 W Miller, an approximate 45 acre tract of land generally located at W. Miller Rd and E. State Route 58 The application and corresponding information in regards to the street frontage/ingress/egress variance is available for review at City Hall during regular business hours. Written comments are invited. Jodie Wasson City Clerk Dated: June 24, 2026 To be published the weeks of: July 1, 2026 July 8, 2026 31  Item 3. Memorandum To: Board of Zoning Adjustment From: Missy Gentry, Development Coordinator Date: June 24, 2026 Subject: Lot Frontage/Ingress/Egress Variance General Information Applicant/Property Owner Joel & Victoria Parris Janice Kessler 25807 E State Route 58 700 W Miller Pleasant Hill, MO 64080 Pleasant Hill, MO 64080 Requested Action Lot Frontage/ Ingress/Egress Variance Property Location 700 W Miller Rd Current Zoning A (Agricultural) Proposed Concept The applicant intends to apply for a replat of the property generally located at 700 W Miller creating two (2) lots one of which,approximately 8 acres, will have no direct street frontage. The applicant is requesting to allow for the required street frontage be waived and an ingress/egress easement be utilized. Zoning Relief Sought The proposed lot layout with the ingress/egress easement does not meet the street frontage (lot width) requirement in the A district design standards (Table 5-2). Requirement: 100 feet of street frontage Variance Requested: Use of 100 ft and use of private ingress/egress easement Board’s Authority The Board of Zoning Adjustment may grant a variance, only if application of the UDC when applied to a particular property, would significantly interfere with the use of the property or result in practical difficulties for a non-use variance. The Board’s authority is limited by the statutes of the State of Missouri and the UDC. The Board may only grant a variance if, in its discretion, each of the variance criteria is met. It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate to the Board that each of the criteria 32  Item 3. have been met. Variance Criteria 1. The variance requested arises from a condition which is unique and peculiar to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in the same zone or district, and further, is not created by an action or actions of the property owner or applicant. a. Applicant Comment: The lot is located on a family -owned property which holds sentimental value. While the lot does not directly abut the street, the property owner will provide an easement to an existing well-maintained drive that accesses Miller St. b. Staff Comment: Staff does not feel that this is unique or peculiar to the property and is caused by the action or actions of the property owner. 2. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. a. Applicant Comment: The granting of the variance will only impact the property owner and applicant, which include the easement to the drive to access Miller St. In addition the adjacent owner to the North is the applicants father. b. Staff Comment: This variance will be creating a single ingress/egress easement that will only affect the applicant and adjoining property owner. 3. Strict application of the provisions of the City’s zoning regulations of which the variance is requested will constitute practical difficulties to the property owner. Missouri Courts have stated that the following factors are helpful in determining practical difficulties: (1) How substantial the deviation (variance) is in relation to the requirement; (2) Whether there will be a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or substantial detriment to the adjoining properties; (3) Can the problem be corrected by a feasible alternative to the grant of a variance; (4) Whether fairness can be achieved by allowing the variance. a. Applicant Comment: The inability to sell the lot with easement access to Miller Street could constitute financial hardship to the property owner. b. Staff Comment: While this variance will not affect the character of the neighborhood, the property is large enough to allow for a different lot split that the street frontage could be met. 4. The variance requested will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community. a. Applicant Comment: The easement provided will access Miller St via a well- maintained drive. No additional infrastructure will impact the public or community. b. Staff Comment: We do not believe that this variance will adversely affect 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. a. Applicant Comment: The property owner has the right to sell this lot with easement access to an already established, well-maintained drive. b. Staff Comment: The City seeks a standard development pattern located along public roadways, which allows access in case of an emergency for fire, police, or EMS service. Without a street frontage, the area will be shielded from public view and inaccessible through public ways. 33  Item 3. 6. Substantial justice will be done by the granting of this variance. (Why is this request fair to all affected?) a. Applicant Comment: The property owner has agreed to provide an easement to Miller St., the lot will have access to Miller St via easement. b. Staff Comment: Substantial justice will not be done by granting this variance as a similar request was asked of other property and the variance was not granted. Overall Staff Comments: Staff does not recommend approval of this variance. While the variance only affects the two properties in question, the situation is being created by the applicant and is not unique to the property as the street frontage could be achieved by splitting the lot along the street side versus the rear of the property. 34