Citation in context
January 5, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
6
regularly. She stated that her suggestion of a preferred option would be that the Board of Aldermen consider amending the Overlays rather than overturning staff’s determination, as that would open up many possibilities for future tenants. Nicki Herrington asked the Director’s thoughts on the variance. Director Istenes stated that it is her job to enforce the zoning laws as written and that granting a use variance is different than overturning her determination; she added that the code states that the applicant must prove hardship and it is this Board’s job to determine if they have done that. Chairman Soule noted that this Board does not have the authority to overturn or rewrite ordinances. Mary Debenedetti suggested voting on the variance request. City Attorney Heinz reminded the members that they need to vote on the first appeal (alleged error my municipal officer). Nicki Herrington made a motion to deny the appeal alleging an error by the municipal officer of the City [in this case, Planning Director Susan Istenes] and thereby upholding Director Istenes’ determination that the proposed use is not an allowable use under the Code; the motion was seconded by Mary Debenedetti and unanimously approved by the members. Chairman Soule noted that the first appeal is thereby denied. Mel Disney referred to an earlier statement made by Director Istenes that the Board of Aldermen could be asked to amend the Ordinance. He asked how long that process generally takes. Director Istenes indicated that a text amendment takes approximately 3 months; a new overlay takes about 18 months.
5
Chairman Soule asked Director Istenes to speak to the purpose of the Downtown Overlay District. Director Istenes read the “Purpose Statement” (Section 410.135.a): The Downtown Overlay Zoning District (hereinafter known in this Article as the DT Overlay District) applies to selected blocks in the High Density Commercial District which have been targeted to remain retail centers. The area encompassed in the Downtown Overlay Zoning District is adjacent to the heart of commercial and service activities in the City of Clayton. Similar to the CBD Core Overlay Zoning District, the Downtown Overlay Zoning District is intended to maintain a "pedestrian friendly" setting, but allows for additional height with stepback provisions. In order to maintain this area as "pedestrian friendly", structures must be human in scale. Building mass, density and frontage variations should create a visually attractive and inviting streetscape within the urban context.” She added that office uses are acceptable uses except on the ground floor where the intent is to draw pedestrians inside for the purpose of purchasing a product or receiving a personal service. Chairman Soule asked staff’s interpretation of “retail”. Director Istenes stated that retail uses (i.e. restaurant, shop/store, etc.) generate sales tax revenue; where money is exchanged for some type of product. Chairman Soule noted that the witness discussed their business generated by people who come to True Title and then go out to lunch/dinner afterwards. He asked for confirmation that this type of business is not what the Ordinance intends. Director Istenes concurred; noting that all offices generate spin-offs into lunch, etc.
He asked for confirmation that this type of business is not what the Ordinance intends. Director Istenes concurred; noting that all offices generate spin-offs into lunch, etc. She added that the HDC (High Density Commercial) District is the broadest and allows all types of uses; the overlay district for which the subject property is zoned restricts ground floor uses. She reiterated that it is her opinion that this is an office use; not a retail use and that she would have the same opinion if this was an insurance office. Nicki Herrington stated that she does not disagree with Susan; she added that she’s been a realtor for 31 years and it took her 2 ½ years to find an appropriate space. She stated that it seems that any business is better than leaving a space vacant and noted that there are office uses across the street and to the north and that she would like to grant the appeal. Chairman Soule called for a 5 minute break (6:50 p.m.). The meeting reconvened at 6:55 p.m. Liza Streett commented that she is concerned that there is not enough retail in Clayton and wonders if the City is trying to correct an error made in 2012. Director Istenes stated that there are non-conforming uses in the City; some of which pre-date 2004 and that the City does not force people out. She added that she is not sure what happened in this case (in 2012), but that an error did occur and that zoning reviews are now conducted
He asked how long that process generally takes. Director Istenes indicated that a text amendment takes approximately 3 months; a new overlay takes about 18 months. Mel Disney commented that this Board has determined that no error occurred; noting that the company {True Title} has been in Clayton for a long time and that time frame would not be in their best interest. Chairman Soule stated that this Board can grant an exception and provide relief. Director Istenes stated that if an exception is allowed, the exception would only be granted to True Title for this particular space, so no precedent would be set….each application is considered on its own merit. Nicki Herrington asked for confirmation that an exception would not be able to be transferred to another future title company. Director Istenes confirmed.
7
Chairman Soule asked for confirmation that an Occupancy Permit was issued by the City in 2012 for True Title to occupy 21 North Meramec Avenue.
Director Istenes replied “yes”.
City Attorney Heinz read the City’s Exhibits into the record (for the second appeal):
A. City of Clayton Code of Ordinances & City Master Plan B. Denial from the City C. Application for Appeal D. Staff Report
Chairman Soule asked the applicant if he had any objections to these exhibits being made part of the record.
Mr. Dufour replied “no”.
Chairman Soule asked Mr. Dufour if he wanted to offer the same exhibits into the record as was offered for the first appeal.
Mr. Dufour replied “yes”.
City Attorney Heinz reminded the Chairman to inquire as to whether anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the requested variance.
Chairman Soule asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak against the requested variance.
There were no responses.
Chairman Soule noted that the staff report had been received. He asked if staff believes that granting this variance would negatively impact light or air to adjacent properties.
Director Istenes replied “no”.
Chairman Soule asked if staff believes that granting this variance would be a detriment to safety.
Director Istenes replied “no”.
Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Soule called for a motion.
Nicki Herrington made a motion to grant a use variance to True Title Company to allow them to occupy ground level tenant space at 30 North Brentwood Boulevard as requested. The motion was seconded by Mary Debenedetti and received the following roll call vote: Ayes: Mel Disney, Nicki Herrington, Mary Debenedetti & Chairman Soule. Nays: Liza Streett. Motion carries and the variance is granted.