Property Survey Site Plan, and elevation submitted by applicant E. Staff Report

2

CHAIRMAN SOULE asked the applicant if he had any objections to these exhibits being made part of the record.

CHARLES BELL (CB) – No

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 and business address.

CB – My name is Charles Bell and my address is 8008 Carondelet, Clayton. Thank you for meeting us this afternoon, we wish to make a modest renovation to the home. Explains the kitchen entrance is very difficult to use and the stairs to the basement are tight, dangerous, and noncompliant which will be improved, safer, and code compliant with the approval of this variance. Our addition will be single story and has attributes of light, air passage, and view.

Presents a new survey update that is marked and entered as Applicants Exhibit 1 as requested by Chairman Soule.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – I would like to confirm that the Roneys’ own both lots 13 and 14

ANNA KRANE (AK) – Explains that the survey provided with the original application was not clear on if those lots had been consolidated. Staff does not have anything that says the lots were consolidated at any point in time within our own records. The results of this new survey provided makes it look as though these lots were legally consolidated and that would change the side-yard setback.

KEN HEINZ (KH) – Mr. Bell, has there been an official lot consolidation because Staff has not been made aware of it?

CB – For tax purposes it is considered one single lot but there is nothing else that says they are. I asked my surveyor if these were one single lot or separate lots and his records show that they are legally two separate lots.

AK – That is not how it is drawn by them on this survey, there is a dashed line. They drew it as one lot.

CB – The legal description and the way they’re drawn show two separate adjacent lots.

KH – I don’t think the taxing of it establishes a lot consolidation.

CB – That is also my understanding as well.

RICK BLISS (RB) – Why does it matter if they are consolidated?

AK – It makes an impact because they side yard setback is based on a percentage of the average width of the lot so it would make a difference on the variance you would grant.

RICK BLISS (RB) – Why does it matter if they are consolidated? AK – It makes an impact because they side yard setback is based on a percentage of the average width of the lot so it would make a difference on the variance you would grant.

3

RB – If the lots were combined, then the side yard setback would be greater than 5 feet.

AK – Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – To clarify that and continue that, if the lots were consolidated would this variance be necessary?

AK – Yes, an even greater variance would be necessary. The reason I am struggling with the way it is drawn here is because typically when you do plats, it’s very common to have lots consolidated and be shown as original lots with a dashed line and the current existing boundaries be shown as solid bold lines. So, you can see on the corner property to the east of you, Lot 15 and Lot 16, that’s another example of a consolidated lot. They have shown that one property owner owning both Lots, 15 and 16, and the dashed line shows how they were originally platted. So that’s the concern here. That the property line splitting Lot 13 and 14 is dashed.

RICK BLISS (RB) – What you’re saying is that it would be a disincentive to have the lots be consolidated.

AK – Yes. These lots were platted prior to our current subdivision regulations. Consolidating them, you would not be able to split them back into two separate lots because it wouldn’t meet our new subdivision codes. Consolidating them officially would make larger side yard setbacks required.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – And would make this variance larger than the current request.

AK – Yes.

AIDEN MCAULEY (AM) – Question: if they are combined they would be requesting a 5-foot variance, 5-foot setback?

AK – No, if they are combined I would have to calculate it again. It would be larger than 5 feet. They would have to be in compliance with our current codes.

AM – reiterates that the house is already noncompliant.

AK – Yes that’s why we’re here. It is illegal, nonconforming.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Ok thank you for that explanation and clarification. I went out and looked at the house this morning and this construction is really going to impact the house that is on the other side of the house that’s on the open lot, is that correct? And the space between the two houses is fairly small. So one of the questions is: are there practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships associated with the strict application of the Zoning Regulations due to the exceptional or unique circumstances or conditions such that strict application would deprive the owner of reasonable use of the property?