Citation in context
November 14, 2019 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
1
MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 14, 2019
ROLL CALL: RICK BLISS
LIZA STREETT
SUSAN ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT MARY DEBENEDETTI SCOTT DEDERT, PLANNER ANNE BISHOP
KEN HEINZ, CITY ATTORNEY CHAIRMAN GARY SOULE
CHAIRMAN SOULE called the meeting to order at approximately 17:00.
Minutes from the August 1, 2019, meeting are postponed until the December meeting.
The first item, an appeal from Ken and Lori Aston, has been removed from the agenda for this meeting, is that correct Mrs. Istenes?
SUSAN ISTENES – Yes, that is correct.
APPEAL FROM BLAIR AND SASHA KWESKIN, APPLICANT/OWNER, FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES FROM THE CITY OF CLAYTON’S ZONING REGULATIONS: A 5.00-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK OF 30 FEET (SECTION 405.1900.A.2).
BLAIR KWESKIN (BK) – HOMEOWNER 8145 PERSHING AVENUE SASHA KWESKIN (SK) – HOMEOWNER 8145 PERSHING AVENUE
ALL THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK WERE SWORN IN BY SUSAN ISTENES. ______________________________________________________________________________
CHAIRMAN SOULE asked if the City had any exhibits to present with regards to this appeal.
KEN HEINZ presented the following exhibits:
A. City of Clayton Code of Ordinances & Master Plan B. Application for Zoning Review & Zoning Review Denial Letter C. Application for Appeal D. Property Survey Site Plan, and elevation submitted by applicant E. Staff Report
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Asked if the applicant had any objections to the City’s exhibits
APPLICANTS – No objections
Property Survey Site Plan, and elevation submitted by applicant E. Staff Report
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Asked if the applicant had any objections to the City’s exhibits
APPLICANTS – No objections
2
CHAIRMAN SOULE – The City’s exhibits A – E will be included in this record. Asks for applicant representative to come forward and begin by stating name.
BK – 8145 Pershing Avenue, homeowner. Here to request a variance to build on top of the already non-conforming garage that sits 5 feet into the required rear yard setback. We spoke to our neighbors including those who were opposed to our project the first time around. We submitted 19 letters of support. The proposed use would not hinder the spirit of the neighborhood. The need for the variance is the result of the unique circumstances of our property being that the existing home is sitting within the rear yard setback. The property already has an existing set exterior which makes it capable of carrying the load.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – I mark this packet of letters as Applicant’s Group Exhibit Number 1, Mr. Heinz do you have copies of these letters? Do you have any objections to this exhibit being made a part of this record?
KEN HEINZ – Yes, I have copies. No, I do not have objections.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Ok, Applicant’s Group Exhibit Number 1 will be added to the record. Members of the Board, any questions for the applicants?
RICK BLISS – Welcome back, what you are proposing tonight is what we were trying to encourage at the last meeting. My question is really for Susan though, I noticed on this particular photo, your HVAC units are on the north side of the garage, do these get counted as part of the encroachment towards the property line?
SUSAN ISTENES – No.
RICK BLISS – So we do not need to worry about including these in the request?
SUSAN ISTENES – Great question, but you are correct, we do not have to worry about them.
BK – Those are existing. We do anticipate moving those to the east which is consistent with most of the neighbors on the street.
SUSAN ISTENES – There is a requirement to remain 5 feet from the property line.
LIZA STREETT – You’ve been very careful to describe what you want to do, did you mention anything about the roofing material matching?
BK – The roofing material would be matching.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Mr. Dedert, it is my understanding that the proposed project is on the same footprint of the existing garage in this case, is that correct?
SCOTT DEDERT – That is correct.
Dedert, it is my understanding that the proposed project is on the same footprint of the existing garage in this case, is that correct? SCOTT DEDERT – That is correct.
3
CHAIRMAN SOULE – So the existing garage already encroaches approximately five feet into the rear yard setback.
SCOTT DEDERT – That is also correct.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – The proposed location of the new garage and the bedroom addition would not increase the existing footprint they just change the height of the existing non-conforming.
SCOTT DEDERT – That’s correct.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – It is the stance… observation that granting this 5-foot variance would not likely impair an adequate supply of light and air on the north side of the property.
SCOTT DEDERT – That is correct.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – The surrounding property owners have lived with the existing 5-foot single story encroachment for some time now.
SCOTT DEDERT – Correct
CHAIRMAN SOULE - Are there any known negative impacts associated with the property with regard to the requested variance?
SCOTT DEDERT – Not that I know of, no.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Now for the Kweskins, did you all consider any alternatives?
BK – Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – One was a new detached garage with a second story addition, what was the, why was that alternative rejected in place of the project you’re presenting tonight?
BK – It is an attached garage with a second story addition, sorry that is mistyped. If we did a detached garage, we would need another variance. So, we did consider building to the west but based on the evaluations with Tom and our contractor and others, we found that it wasn’t an advantage for us because we wouldn’t be able to fit two cars based on the existing footprint of the home.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Any other questions for the Kweskins? Mr. Heinz, does the City have anything else to offer or ask?
KEN HEINZ – No.
RICK BLISS – I WILL PROPOSE APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE LOCATION OF A NEW SECOND STORY ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING FIRST FLOOR EXISTING GARAGE THAT WILL