Citation in context
July 7, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
1
MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 7, 2016
ROLL CALL: Rick Bliss
Louis Clayton, Planner Mel Disney
Ken Heinz, Acting City Attorney Anne Martin Mary DeBenedetti Chairman Gary Soule
Chairman Soule called the meeting to order at 5:00. He welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that there is only one item for consideration this evening and that there was a full complement of the Board (5 members) in attendance. All Board members and city staff introduced themselves.
The minutes of the May 5, 2016 meeting were presented for approval. It was erroneously noted that Susan Istenes was listed as a staff member in attendance; Louis Clayton, Planner, was the staff member in attendance. Also, the first paragraph erroneously named Chairman “Disney instead of Chairman “Soule”. The recording secretary indicated that she would make the necessary changes. The minutes were then approved, as amended/corrected, after having been previously distributed to each member.
APPEAL FROM JOHN ODOM FOR THE PROPERTY AT 213 NORTH BEMISTON AVENUE
Chairman Soule verified that the applicant was in attendance.
Those wishing to speak were sworn in by Kathy Scott, Planning Technician/Recording Secretary.
Chairman Soule asked if the City had any exhibits to present with regard to this appeal.
Acting City Attorney Heinz presented the following exhibits:
A. City of Clayton Code of Ordinances & City Master Plan B. Zoning Review Application & Denial Letter C. Appeal Application D. Drawings submitted by applicant E. Staff Report
Chairman Soule asked the applicant if he had any objections to these exhibits being made part of the record.
Mr. Odom replied “no”.
Mr. Odom replied “no”.
2
Chairman Soule indicated that the exhibits would then be made part of the record.
Mr. Odom indicated that he had a new packet of information for distribution.
Chairman Soule indicated that it would be marked as Applicant’s Group Exhibit 1. Chairman Soule asked Mr. Odom to describe the Exhibit.
Mr. Odom explained that Mr. Osborne owns the adjoining unit addressed 211 and the two units share a common wall. He stated that the initial plan was for a large addition, which presented a problem so they have backed off significantly on the scope of the project. He stated that their new proposal still requires a variance, but not to the same degree; the previous proposal was for a 15-foot addition (he referred to the floor plan) and they are now only asking to square-off the back bay.
Louis Clayton indicated that staff has not seen this revised proposal before now and would need to look closely at the new plans.
Chairman Soule asked how this affects the agenda.
Acting City Attorney Heinz stated that as he understands it, the revised project is smaller and would require a lesser variance than the 6-foot as noticed so the notice is sufficient; however, the problem is that there is no benefit of staff review or a staff report for this new proposal. He informed the members that it was their choice whether to consider it or not.
Louis Clayton stated that he does not see an issue moving forward as this new request is for a significantly smaller variance.
Chairman Soule asked Louis if staff has no objection to moving forward with the new request.
Louis Clayton concurred.
Mr. Odom informed the members that they want to be good neighbors; that this is a much smaller request, noting that the bay window already encroaches and they aren’t proposing to go out any further.
Chairman Soule commented that the former request was for a 6-foot variance. He asked how much of a variance they are asking for now.
Mr. Odom indicated that it’s 2 ½ feet or so.
Rick Bliss asked if they are proposing going no further west than where the doors are currently.
Mr. Odom replied “yes”; adding that they just want to square off the corner. He stated the other side is outside the 6-foot setback, so that’s not an issue.
Rick Bliss referred to the enlarged plan sheet.
He stated the other side is outside the 6-foot setback, so that’s not an issue. Rick Bliss referred to the enlarged plan sheet.
3
Mr. Odom stated that the site survey is the next page and that the new proposal does not require a modification to the party wall.
Anne Martin asked about the red lines on one of the sheets.
Mr. Odom informed the members to ignore the red lines.
Bill Osborne, owner of 211 North Bemiston, stated that overall, he is in favor of the variance based on what’s been presented tonight, as long as they don’t go back and ask again for a 15-foot addition.
Anne Martin asked for confirmation from the applicant that they are now asking for 4-square feet instead of 500-square-feet.
Mr. Odom replied “yes”.
Mr. Osborne stated that he just found this out today.
Mr. Odom stated that they are now not going any further than the French door.
Rick Bliss questioned how to phrase the motion.
Chairman Soule stated that they are now asking for only a 2.5-foot variance from the side yard setback requirement of 6 feet.
Louis Clayton asked if Mr. Odom was certain that they would not be asking for more than a 2.6- foot variance.
Chairman Soule informed Mr. Odom that this Board does not give “fill in the blank” variances and that is why an advance submittal is required. He stated that he is hesitant to proceed with this tonight.
Mr. Odom asked the members to look at the exhibit.
Chairman Soule asked Ken Heinz for advice.
Ken Heinz stated that an “intention” can’t be approved and recommended the applicant re-draw the plan and resubmit for a future meeting, unless the Board wants to delegate the authority to the Planner (Louis Clayton) especially considering everyone seems to be okay with the intent.
Anne Martin asked the applicant the purpose of gaining an additional 4 square feet; she asked what the hardship is.
Mr. Odom replied that they want to clean-up the floor plan.